乌克兰战争是被挑起的——为什么这对实现和平很重要
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/wgtgma5kj69pbpndjr4wf6aayhrszm
通过认识到北约东扩问题是这场战争的核心，我们理解了为什么美国的武器无法结束这场战争。 只有外交努力才能做到这一点。
作者：杰弗里·D. 萨克斯 2023 年 5 月 23 日 共同的梦想
乔治·奥威尔在 1984 年写道：“谁控制了过去，谁就控制了未来：谁控制了现在，就控制了过去。” 各国政府不遗余力地扭曲公众对过去的看法。 关于乌克兰战争，拜登政府多次错误地声称，乌克兰战争始于俄罗斯2022年2月24日无端攻击乌克兰。事实上，这场战争是美国挑起的，其方式正如美国主要外交官所预料的那样。 战争爆发前几十年，这意味着战争本来可以避免，现在应该通过谈判停止。
认识到战争是被挑起的，有助于我们了解如何制止战争。 这并不能证明俄罗斯的入侵是正当的。 对俄罗斯来说，更好的做法可能是加强与欧洲和非西方世界的外交，以解释和反对美国的军国主义和单边主义。 事实上，美国无情地推动北约扩张遭到了全世界的广泛反对，因此俄罗斯的外交而不是战争可能会更有效。
拜登团队不断使用“无端”一词，最近一次是在拜登的战争一周年纪念演讲中，在最近的北约声明中，以及在最近的七国集团声明中。 对拜登友好的主流媒体只是鹦鹉学舌地模仿白宫。 《纽约时报》是罪魁祸首，在五篇社论、《纽约时报》作家的 14 篇评论专栏和 7 篇客座专栏中，至少 26 次将这次入侵描述为“无端”！
事实上，美国的挑衅主要有两个。 一是美国有意将北约扩大到乌克兰和格鲁吉亚，以期在黑海地区由北约国家（乌克兰、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、土耳其、格鲁吉亚，逆时针顺序）包围俄罗斯。 第二个是美国在 2014 年 2 月暴力推翻乌克兰亲俄总统维克多·亚努科维奇（Viktor Yanukovych），从而在乌克兰建立了一个仇俄政权。乌克兰的枪战是在 9 年前亚努科维奇被推翻时开始的，而不是在 2022 年 2 月。 美国政府、北约和七国集团领导人会让我们相信。
乌克兰和平的关键是在乌克兰中立和北约不扩大的基础上进行谈判。
拜登和他的外交政策团队拒绝讨论战争的这些根源。 承认他们会在三个方面削弱政府。 首先，它将暴露这样一个事实：战争本可以避免或提前停止，从而使乌克兰免受目前的破坏，并使美国迄今为止免受超过 1000 亿美元的支出。 其次，这将暴露拜登总统在战争中作为推翻亚努科维奇的参与者以及在此之前作为军工联合体的坚定支持者和北约东扩的早期倡导者的个人角色。 第三，这将把拜登推到谈判桌前，破坏政府继续推动北约扩张的努力。
档案无可辩驳地表明，美国和德国政府多次向苏联总统戈尔巴乔夫承诺，在苏联解散华约军事联盟时，北约不会“东移一寸”。 尽管如此，美国的北约扩张计划早在 20 世纪 90 年代初就开始了，远早于弗拉基米尔·普京 (Vladimir Putin) 担任俄罗斯总统之前。 1997年，国家安全专家兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基非常精确地阐明了北约扩张时间表。
美国外交官和乌克兰领导人都清楚北约东扩可能导致战争。 美国伟大的学者政治家乔治·凯南称北约东扩是一个“致命的错误”，他在《纽约时报》上写道，“这样的决定可能会激起俄罗斯舆论中的民族主义、反西方和军国主义倾向； 对俄罗斯民主的发展产生不利影响； 使东西方关系恢复冷战气氛，并将俄罗斯外交政策推向我们显然不喜欢的方向。”
比尔·克林顿总统的国防部长威廉·佩里考虑辞职，以抗议北约东扩。 在回忆 20 世纪 90 年代中期的这一关键时刻时，佩里在 2016 年说道：“我们的第一个行动真正让我们走向了一个糟糕的方向，那就是北约开始扩张，引入了东欧国家，其中一些国家与俄罗斯接壤。 。 当时，我们正在与俄罗斯密切合作，他们开始习惯北约可以成为朋友而不是敌人的想法……但他们对北约就在他们的边境上感到非常不舒服，他们做了一个 强烈呼吁我们不要继续这样做。”
2008年，时任美国大使
或向俄罗斯，现在中央情报局局长威廉伯恩斯向华盛顿发出了一封电报，详细警告北约东扩的严重风险：“乌克兰和格鲁吉亚的北约愿望不仅触动了俄罗斯的神经，还引起了人们对其后果的严重担忧。 该地区的稳定。 俄罗斯不仅意识到这种包围和削弱俄罗斯在该地区影响力的行为，而且还担心出现不可预测和不受控制的后果，严重影响俄罗斯的安全利益。 专家告诉我们，俄罗斯尤其担心乌克兰在加入北约问题上的强烈分歧，其中许多俄罗斯族社区反对加入北约，这可能会导致重大分裂，导致暴力，最坏的情况是内战。 在这种情况下，俄罗斯将不得不决定是否进行干预； 俄罗斯不想面对这个决定。”
乌克兰领导人清楚地知道，敦促北约扩大对乌克兰的影响将意味着战争。 泽伦斯基前顾问奥列克西·阿雷斯托维奇在 2019 年的一次采访中宣称，“我们加入北约的代价是与俄罗斯进行一场大战。”
2010年至2013年期间，亚努科维奇主张中立，这与乌克兰舆论一致。 美国秘密地致力于推翻亚努科维奇，这一点在美国助理国务卿维多利亚·纽兰和美国大使杰弗里·皮亚特在暴力推翻亚努科维奇前几周策划后亚努科维奇政府的录音中生动地体现出来。 纽兰在电话中明确表示，她正在与时任副总统拜登和他的国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文密切协调，这同一个拜登-纽兰-沙利文团队现在处于美国对乌克兰政策的核心。
亚努科维奇被推翻后，顿巴斯爆发战争，俄罗斯声称拥有克里米亚主权。 乌克兰新政府呼吁加入北约，美国武装并帮助重组乌克兰军队，使其能够与北约互操作。 2021年，北约和拜登政府再次对乌克兰在北约的未来做出了强烈承诺。
在俄罗斯入侵之前，北约东扩成为焦点。 普京的美俄条约草案（2021 年 12 月 17 日）呼吁停止北约东扩。 俄罗斯领导人在 2022 年 2 月 21 日举行的俄罗斯国家安全委员会会议上将北约东扩视为战争原因。普京在当天的全国讲话中宣布北约东扩是入侵的核心原因。
历史学家杰弗里·罗伯茨最近写道：“俄罗斯与西方达成一项阻止北约扩张并中立乌克兰的协议，以换取对乌克兰独立和主权的坚实保障，是否可以阻止战争？ 很有可能。” 2022年3月，俄罗斯和乌克兰报告称，在乌克兰保持中立的基础上，通过谈判迅速结束战争取得了进展。 担任调解人的以色列前总理纳夫塔利·贝内特表示，在美国、英国和法国阻止之前，协议已接近达成。
尽管拜登政府宣称俄罗斯的入侵是无端的，但俄罗斯在2021年寻求外交选择以避免战争，而拜登则拒绝外交，坚称俄罗斯在北约东扩问题上没有任何发言权。 俄罗斯在2022年3月推动外交，而拜登团队则再次阻止通过外交手段结束战争。
通过认识到北约东扩问题是这场战争的核心，我们理解了为什么美国的武器无法结束这场战争。 俄罗斯将在必要时升级行动，以阻止北约扩大到乌克兰。 乌克兰和平的关键是在乌克兰中立和北约不扩大的基础上进行谈判。 拜登政府坚持北约东扩，使乌克兰成为美国军事愿望的错误和无法实现的受害者。 现在是停止挑衅、通过谈判恢复乌克兰和平的时候了。
更正：本文的早期版本错误地表述了 William Burns 2008 年关于北约扩张的电报警告的日期。 该错误已得到修复。
The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/wgtgma5kj69pbpndjr4wf6aayhrszm
By recognizing that the question of NATO enlargement is at the center of this war, we understand why U.S. weaponry will not end this war. Only diplomatic efforts can do that.
By JeffreyD. Sachs May 23, 2023 Common Dreams
George Orwell wrote in 1984 that "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." Governments work relentlessly to distort public perceptions of the past. Regarding the Ukraine War, the Biden administration has repeatedly and falsely claimed that the Ukraine War started with an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. In fact, the war was provoked by the U.S. in ways that leading U.S. diplomats anticipated for decades in the lead-up to the war, meaning that the war could have been avoided and should now be stopped through negotiations.
Recognizing that the war was provoked helps us to understand how to stop it. It doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion. A far better approach for Russia might have been to step up diplomacy with Europe and with the non-Western world to explain and oppose U.S. militarism and unilateralism. In fact, the relentless U.S. push to expand NATO is widely opposed throughout the world, so Russian diplomacy rather than war would likely have been effective.
The Biden team uses the word “unprovoked” incessantly, most recently in Biden’s major speech on the first-year anniversary of the war, in a recent NATO statement, and in the most recent G7 statement. Mainstream media friendly to Biden simply parrot the White House. TheNew York Times is the lead culprit, describing the invasion as “unprovoked” no fewer than 26 times, in five editorials, 14 opinion columns by NYT writers, and seven guest op-eds!
There were in fact two main U.S. provocations. The first was the U.S. intention to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia in order to surround Russia in the Black Sea region by NATO countries (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia, in counterclockwise order). The second was the U.S. role in installing a Russophobic regime in Ukraine by the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014. The shooting war in Ukraine began with Yanukovych’s overthrow nine years ago, not in February 2022 as the U.S. government, NATO, and the G7 leaders would have us believe.
The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement.
Biden and his foreign policy team refuse to discuss these roots of the war. To recognize them would undermine the administration in three ways. First, it would expose the fact that the war could have been avoided, or stopped early, sparing Ukraine its current devastation and the U.S. more than $100 billion in outlays to date. Second, it would expose President Biden’s personal role in the war as a participant in the overthrow of Yanukovych, and before that as a staunch backer of the military-industrial complex and very early advocate of NATO enlargement. Third, it would push Biden to the negotiating table, undermining the administration’s continued push for NATO expansion.
The archives show irrefutably that the U.S. and German governments repeatedly promised to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance. Nonetheless, U.S. planning for NATO expansion began early in the 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia’s president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the NATO expansion timeline with remarkable precision.
U.S. diplomats and Ukraine’s own leaders knew well that NATO enlargement could lead to war. The great US scholar-statesman George Kennan called NATO enlargement a “fateful error,” writing in the New York Times that, “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Perry considered resigning in protest against NATO enlargement. In reminiscing about this crucial moment in the mid-1990s, Perry said the following in 2016: “Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time, we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that NATO could be a friend rather than an enemy ... but they were very uncomfortable about having NATO right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”
In 2008, then U.S. Ambassador to Russia, and now CIA Director, William Burns, sent a cable to Washington warning at length of grave risks of NATO enlargement: “Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”
Ukraine’s leaders knew clearly that pressing for NATO enlargement to Ukraine would mean war. Former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovych declared in a 2019 interview “that our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”
During 2010-2013, Yanukovych pushed neutrality, in line with Ukrainian public opinion. The U.S. worked covertly to overthrow Yanukovych, as captured vividly in the tape of then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt planning the post-Yanukovych government weeks before the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. Nuland makes clear on the call that she was coordinating closely with then Vice President Biden and his national security advisor Jake Sullivan, the same Biden-Nuland-Sullivan team now at the center of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Ukraine.
After Yanukovych’s overthrow, the war broke out in the Donbas, while Russia claimed Crimea. The new Ukrainian government appealed for NATO membership, and the U.S. armed and helped restructure the Ukrainian army to make it interoperable with NATO. In 2021, NATO and the Biden Administration strongly recommitted to Ukraine’s future in NATO.
In the immediate lead-up to Russia’s invasion, NATO enlargement was center stage. Putin’s draft US-Russia Treaty (December 17, 2021) called for a halt to NATO enlargement. Russia’s leaders put NATO enlargement as the cause of war in Russia’s National Security Council meeting on February 21, 2022. In his address to the nation that day, Putin declared NATO enlargement to be a central reason for the invasion.
Historian Geoffrey Roberts recently wrote: “Could war have been prevented by a Russian-Western deal that halted NATO expansion and neutralised Ukraine in return for solid guarantees of Ukrainian independence and sovereignty? Quite possibly.” In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine reported progress towards a quick negotiated end to the war based on Ukraine’s neutrality. According to Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister of Israel, who was a mediator, an agreement was close to being reached before the U.S., U.K., and France blocked it.
While the Biden administration declares Russia’s invasion to be unprovoked, Russia pursued diplomatic options in 2021 to avoid war, while Biden rejected diplomacy, insisting that Russia had no say whatsoever on the question of NATO enlargement. And Russia pushed diplomacy in March 2022, while the Biden team again blocked a diplomatic end to the war.
By recognizing that the question of NATO enlargement is at the center of this war, we understand why U.S. weaponry will not end this war. Russia will escalate as necessary to prevent NATO enlargement to Ukraine. The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement. The Biden administration’s insistence on NATO enlargement to Ukraine has made Ukraine a victim of misconceived and unachievable U.S. military aspirations. It’s time for the provocations to stop, and for negotiations to restore peace to Ukraine.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of William Burns' 2008 cable warning about NATO enlargment. That error has been fixed.
