前美国驻苏联大使对现在俄乌冲突的文章 https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/15/nato-and-origins-ukraine-crisis Today we face an avoidable crisis between the United States and Russia that was predictable, willfully precipitated, but can easily be resolved by the application of common sense. The policies pursued by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all contributed to bringing us to this point. But how did we get to this point? Allow me, as someone who participated in the negotiations that ended the Cold War, to bring some history to bear on the current crisis. We are being told each day that war may be imminent in Ukraine. Russian troops, we are told, are massing at Ukraine's borders and could attack at any time. American citizens are being advised to leave Ukraine and dependents of the American Embassy staff are being evacuated. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president has advised against panic and made clear that he does not consider a Russian invasion imminent. Vladimir Putin has denied that he has any intention of invading Ukraine. His demand is that the process of adding new members to NATO cease and that Russia has assurance that Ukraine and Georgia will never be members. President Biden has refused to give such assurance but made clear his willingness to continue discussing questions of strategic stability in Europe. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has made clear it has no intention of implementing the agreement reached in 2015 for reuniting the Donbas provinces into Ukraine with a large degree of local autonomy—an agreement with Russia, France, and Germany that the United States endorsed. Was this crisis avoidable? In short, yes. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, many observers wrongly believed they were witnessing the end of the Cold War when It had actually ended at least two years earlier by negotiation and was in the interest of all the parties. President George H.W. Bush hoped that Gorbachev would manage to keep most of the 12 non-Baltic republics in a voluntary federation. Despite the prevalent belief held by both the DC foreign policy establishment and most of the Russian public, the United States did not support, much less cause the break-up of the Soviet Union. We supported the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and one of the last acts of the Soviet parliament was to legalize their claim to independence. And—despite frequently voiced fears—Vladimir Putin has never threatened to re-absorb the Baltic countries or to claim any of their territories, though he has criticized some that denied ethnic Russians the full rights of citizenship, a principle that the European Union is pledged to enforce. Since Putin's major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia. Was this crisis predictable? Absolutely. NATO expansion was the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. In 1997, when the question of adding more NATO members arose, I was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In my introductory remarks, I made the following statement: "I consider the administration's recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed." Indeed, our nuclear arsenals were capable of ending the possibility of civilization on Earth. But that was not the only reason I cited for including rather than excluding Russia from European security. As I explained to the SFRC: "The plan to increase the membership of NATO fails to take account of the real international situation following the end of the Cold War, and proceeds in accord with a logic that made sense only during the Cold War. The division of Europe ended before there was any thought of taking new members into NATO. No one is threatening to re-divide Europe. It is therefore absurd to claim, as some have, that it is necessary to take new members into NATO to avoid a future division of Europe; if NATO is to be the principal instrument for unifying the continent, then logically the only way it can do so is by expanding to include all European countries. But that does not appear to be the aim of the administration, and even if it is, the way to reach it is not by admitting new members piecemeal." The decision to expand NATO piecemeal was a reversal of American policies that produced the end of the Cold War. President George H.W. Bush had proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev had spoken of "our common European home," had welcomed representatives of East European governments who threw off their communist rulers and had ordered radical reductions in Soviet military forces by explaining that for one country to be secure, there must be security for all. President Bush also assured Gorbachev during their meeting in Malta in December, 1989, that if the countries of Eastern Europe were allowed to choose their future orientation by democratic processes, the United States would not "take advantage" of that process. (Obviously, bringing countries into NATO that were then in the Warsaw Pact would be "taking advantage.") The following year, Gorbachev was assured, though not in a formal treaty, that if a unified Germany was allowed to remain in NATO, there would be no movement of NATO jurisdiction to the east, "not one inch." These comments were made to Gorbachev before the Soviet Union broke up. Once it did, the Russian Federation had less than half the population of the Soviet Union and a military establishment demoralized and in total disarray. While there was no reason to enlarge NATO after the Soviet Union recognized and respected the independence of the East European countries, there was even less reason to fear the Russian Federation as a threat. Was this crisis willfully precipitated? Alas, the policies pursued by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all contributed to bringing us to this point. Adding countries in Eastern Europe to NATO continued during the George W. Bush administration but that was not the only thing that stimulated Russian objection. At the same time, the United States began withdrawing from the arms control treaties that had tempered, for a time, an irrational and dangerous arms race and were the foundation agreements for ending the Cold War. The most significant was the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which had been the cornerstone treaty for the series of agreements that halted for a time the nuclear arms race. After 9/11, Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush and offer support. He was as good as his word by facilitating the attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It was clear at that time that Putin aspired to a security partnership with the United States as the jihadist terrorists who were targeting the United States were also targeting Russia. Nevertheless, Washington continued its course of ignoring Russian (and also allied) interests by invading Iraq, an act of aggression that not only Russia opposed, but also France and Germany. Although President Obama initially promised improved relations through his "reset" policy, the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage "regime change" in Russia itself. American actions in Syria and Ukraine were seen by the Russian president, and most Russians, as indirect attacks on them. And so far as Ukraine is concerned, U.S. intrusion into its domestic politics was deep, actively supporting the 2014 revolution and overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014. Relations soured further during President Obama's second term after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Then things got worse during the four years of Donald Trump's tenure. Accused of being a Russian dupe, Trump passed every anti-Russian measure that came along, while at the same time flattering Putin as a great leader. Can the crisis be resolved by the application of common sense? Yes, after all, what Putin is demanding is eminently reasonable. He is not demanding the exit of any NATO member and he is threatening none. By any common sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence—the avowed aim of those who agitated for the "color revolutions"—was a fool's errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Now, to say that approving Putin's demands is in the objective interest of the United States does not mean that it will be easy to do. The leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties have developed such a Russo-phobic stance that it will take great political skill to navigate such treacherous political waters and achieve a rational outcome. President Biden has made it clear that the United States will not intervene with its own troops if Russia invades Ukraine. So why move them into Eastern Europe? Just to show hawks in Congress that he is standing firm? Maybe the subsequent negotiations between Washington and the Kremlin will find a way to allay Russian concerns and defuse the crisis. And maybe then Congress will start dealing with the growing problems we have at home instead of making them worse. Or so one can hope.
the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage "regime change" in Russia itself.
the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage "regime change" in Russia itself. cebublue 发表于 2022-02-28 00:41
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/15/nato-and-origins-ukraine-crisis
Today we face an avoidable crisis between the United States and Russia that was predictable, willfully precipitated, but can easily be resolved by the application of common sense.
The policies pursued by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all contributed to bringing us to this point.
But how did we get to this point?
Allow me, as someone who participated in the negotiations that ended the Cold War, to bring some history to bear on the current crisis.
We are being told each day that war may be imminent in Ukraine. Russian troops, we are told, are massing at Ukraine's borders and could attack at any time. American citizens are being advised to leave Ukraine and dependents of the American Embassy staff are being evacuated. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president has advised against panic and made clear that he does not consider a Russian invasion imminent. Vladimir Putin has denied that he has any intention of invading Ukraine. His demand is that the process of adding new members to NATO cease and that Russia has assurance that Ukraine and Georgia will never be members.
President Biden has refused to give such assurance but made clear his willingness to continue discussing questions of strategic stability in Europe. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has made clear it has no intention of implementing the agreement reached in 2015 for reuniting the Donbas provinces into Ukraine with a large degree of local autonomy—an agreement with Russia, France, and Germany that the United States endorsed.
Was this crisis avoidable?
In short, yes. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, many observers wrongly believed they were witnessing the end of the Cold War when It had actually ended at least two years earlier by negotiation and was in the interest of all the parties. President George H.W. Bush hoped that Gorbachev would manage to keep most of the 12 non-Baltic republics in a voluntary federation.
Despite the prevalent belief held by both the DC foreign policy establishment and most of the Russian public, the United States did not support, much less cause the break-up of the Soviet Union. We supported the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and one of the last acts of the Soviet parliament was to legalize their claim to independence. And—despite frequently voiced fears—Vladimir Putin has never threatened to re-absorb the Baltic countries or to claim any of their territories, though he has criticized some that denied ethnic Russians the full rights of citizenship, a principle that the European Union is pledged to enforce.
Since Putin's major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.
Was this crisis predictable?
Absolutely. NATO expansion was the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. In 1997, when the question of adding more NATO members arose, I was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In my introductory remarks, I made the following statement:
"I consider the administration's recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed." Indeed, our nuclear arsenals were capable of ending the possibility of civilization on Earth.
But that was not the only reason I cited for including rather than excluding Russia from European security. As I explained to the SFRC: "The plan to increase the membership of NATO fails to take account of the real international situation following the end of the Cold War, and proceeds in accord with a logic that made sense only during the Cold War. The division of Europe ended before there was any thought of taking new members into NATO. No one is threatening to re-divide Europe. It is therefore absurd to claim, as some have, that it is necessary to take new members into NATO to avoid a future division of Europe; if NATO is to be the principal instrument for unifying the continent, then logically the only way it can do so is by expanding to include all European countries. But that does not appear to be the aim of the administration, and even if it is, the way to reach it is not by admitting new members piecemeal."
The decision to expand NATO piecemeal was a reversal of American policies that produced the end of the Cold War. President George H.W. Bush had proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev had spoken of "our common European home," had welcomed representatives of East European governments who threw off their communist rulers and had ordered radical reductions in Soviet military forces by explaining that for one country to be secure, there must be security for all.
President Bush also assured Gorbachev during their meeting in Malta in December, 1989, that if the countries of Eastern Europe were allowed to choose their future orientation by democratic processes, the United States would not "take advantage" of that process. (Obviously, bringing countries into NATO that were then in the Warsaw Pact would be "taking advantage.") The following year, Gorbachev was assured, though not in a formal treaty, that if a unified Germany was allowed to remain in NATO, there would be no movement of NATO jurisdiction to the east, "not one inch."
These comments were made to Gorbachev before the Soviet Union broke up. Once it did, the Russian Federation had less than half the population of the Soviet Union and a military establishment demoralized and in total disarray. While there was no reason to enlarge NATO after the Soviet Union recognized and respected the independence of the East European countries, there was even less reason to fear the Russian Federation as a threat.
Was this crisis willfully precipitated?
Alas, the policies pursued by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all contributed to bringing us to this point.
Adding countries in Eastern Europe to NATO continued during the George W. Bush administration but that was not the only thing that stimulated Russian objection. At the same time, the United States began withdrawing from the arms control treaties that had tempered, for a time, an irrational and dangerous arms race and were the foundation agreements for ending the Cold War. The most significant was the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which had been the cornerstone treaty for the series of agreements that halted for a time the nuclear arms race. After 9/11, Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush and offer support. He was as good as his word by facilitating the attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It was clear at that time that Putin aspired to a security partnership with the United States as the jihadist terrorists who were targeting the United States were also targeting Russia. Nevertheless, Washington continued its course of ignoring Russian (and also allied) interests by invading Iraq, an act of aggression that not only Russia opposed, but also France and Germany.
Although President Obama initially promised improved relations through his "reset" policy, the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage "regime change" in Russia itself. American actions in Syria and Ukraine were seen by the Russian president, and most Russians, as indirect attacks on them.
And so far as Ukraine is concerned, U.S. intrusion into its domestic politics was deep, actively supporting the 2014 revolution and overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.
Relations soured further during President Obama's second term after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Then things got worse during the four years of Donald Trump's tenure. Accused of being a Russian dupe, Trump passed every anti-Russian measure that came along, while at the same time flattering Putin as a great leader.
Can the crisis be resolved by the application of common sense?
Yes, after all, what Putin is demanding is eminently reasonable. He is not demanding the exit of any NATO member and he is threatening none. By any common sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence—the avowed aim of those who agitated for the "color revolutions"—was a fool's errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Now, to say that approving Putin's demands is in the objective interest of the United States does not mean that it will be easy to do. The leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties have developed such a Russo-phobic stance that it will take great political skill to navigate such treacherous political waters and achieve a rational outcome.
President Biden has made it clear that the United States will not intervene with its own troops if Russia invades Ukraine. So why move them into Eastern Europe? Just to show hawks in Congress that he is standing firm?
Maybe the subsequent negotiations between Washington and the Kremlin will find a way to allay Russian concerns and defuse the crisis. And maybe then Congress will start dealing with the growing problems we have at home instead of making them worse.
Or so one can hope.
不是可怜， 是愚蠢阿， 想抱 nato 的大腿。 俄罗斯能肯吗？ NATO 解散了， 地球肯定会更和平。
萨达姆的伊拉克更冤， 连核弹的影子也没有就没灭了。
纯讨论 这样说俄罗斯也是欧洲噩梦吧，按理说苏联解体后，独立出去的小国就独立了，但明显俄罗斯不这么认为，就像大家觉得乌俄冲突是两个国家打，俄罗斯认为是类似内战，别人不该管。 而且俄罗斯要和欧洲民主国家们靠拢，说的好听，但普金独裁快20年了吧，民主国家没什么这么干的。 还有说普金一直说不会侵入乌克兰，但他明显已经挖了人家墙角了。 美国一直号称民主灯塔，支持想走民主道路的国家，也正常吧。 说美国intrusion乌克兰内政，可是当年乌克兰被迫交出核武器又算什么？ 是挺乱的，但我还是觉得乌克兰可怜，俄罗斯更流氓，更不站理。
true
我觉得没了俄罗斯世界才更安全
可为什么要听俄罗斯的?乌克兰都在建墙和俄罗斯隔离了。乌克兰不愿意跟着俄罗斯老大，想另投它派，就该打?
the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage "regime change" in Russia itself.
反过来，如果加拿大，墨西哥准备投奔Russia或者中国，可以支持这些国家的军事扩张，看看美国老大啥反应？会不会是您随意的态度。
sigh, 这么难理解？ 2017 年韩国就装了个萨德反导系统， 中国多大反应？ 古巴导弹危机没听说过？
人家俄罗斯又不是傻子。 只能允许老美反感别人在自己家门口安导弹？ 人家俄罗斯人好欺负？
俺想不明白， 这么简答的道理。 你邻居在自己家门口架个迫击炮对着你， 说是只是自卫， 你会很高兴？
当年中国新闻不也是说伊拉克侵略科威特，美国为首的维和部队。怎么现在画风变了?那时候新闻联播也加时了吧，我对那时候国内新闻谴责伊拉克记忆深刻。
加拿大墨西哥投奔了么？ 你怎么知道美国啥反应？
哦，全是假设
那给你个不假设的
中南美洲的国家要跟中国建交，为什么美国拼命拉着不让？
不久前就发生了一个，看到吗？
你说的很冤的萨达姆是下令入侵科威特的那一个吗？
俄罗斯想控制从苏联解体出去的小国，美国帮助这些小国摆脱俄罗斯的影响，俄罗斯特别生气，是这意思吧。
抢中国土地杀中国人的时候好像地球上还没有nato这个物种
墨西哥和加拿大投奔极权政府？他们的脑袋是被门夹了吗？
这个，中国问题我不想讨论。 那乌克兰就该是傻子? 你站在俄罗斯立场想当然觉得简单。
连萨达姆都洗啊？不是他神经病去侵略科威特会招致这样的结局？你的发言像战犯知道不？别给国家招黑。
问问他，听说过科威特么
勾践卧薪尝胆的时候更可怜。
想当年我跟俺爹天天看新闻，国家可是站在科威特这边的，小粉红们学好历史先。科威特的关系和中国挺好的，你不怕你挺萨达姆的言论被传过去？罪加一等出不来了要
乌克兰跟韩国比，那韩国察言观色，能进能退，顽强生长的能力强太多了。而且人家就一个民族。
感觉俄罗斯这次以打乌克兰的名义给nato和美国看的。
Avoidable, predictable还是一样发生了
勾践被灭国了才卧薪尝胆，你这里想类比谁啊？
什么您随意态度。 说俄乌就是俄乌，非要扯远。美国也没说支持，只是也没绝了乌克兰后路，普金就疯了。 希望普金因为发起邪恶的战争下台，明明是莫须有的理由侵略其他国家，非说成自卫。
总算有人懂俺。 算了， 不说了， 很无聊。每个人都有自己的看法。
你不会查查nato都是什么国家，抢中国土地杀中国人的是哪些国家
看看有没有重合的
不明白你们这些人是怎么回事，反复问这种无辜喜羊羊问题。
Putin的全国讲话YouTube上就有，你们不能看吗？他的理由很直白：
从乌克兰在建的北约导弹基地发射的高精度导弹，五分钟就能飞到莫斯科。
5分钟，5分钟！5分钟！！听明白了吗？
Putin就是怕死！他不想低头喝口汤的功夫就被从乌克兰起飞的导弹炸成了灰！
所以这事没得商量，要么乌克兰中立，要么大家一起死！这就是他的理由。
你太钻牛角尖了，看卧薪尝胆的表面意思就可以了。
你查查现在占着中国土地的是谁。
要不你站在美国立场上，考虑考虑古巴，巴拿马，乃至整个西半球其它国家的感受？
俄罗斯 海参崴
一定要提这个话题？？
你们网评员的水平真的这么差劲么？
肯定有侵略加种族灭绝惯犯俄罗斯啊
那这个前驻俄大使是因为业务不精，所以大谈伪命题？
所以能否定nato成员很大部分就是当年那些八国联军的国家了？
你不用掏这些幼儿园水平的话出来
你否认nato里很多成员就是当年八国联军的成员？
萨达姆是灭了，国没灭，人民日子过的更好。https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-live-in-Iraq
完全不知道你想说什么，你想说nato里很多国家侵略过中国，说明nato很坏，还迫害俄罗斯？现在大家告诉你俄罗斯更坏，八国联军入侵时期被抢占的土地，只有俄罗斯抢的没拿回来。
很多国家加入nato是被俄罗斯的恶行吓到，比如入侵乌克兰之后的芬兰和瑞典。
所以要先打到大毛拿回土地，再打到NATO要租界。
他怕死就侵略人家？那回头他怕中国强大了你准备把中国也送过去？
大概是钮钴禄氏后人，替祖宗姑奶奶找场子。
不可理喻。懒得和你说。
Nato的租界早就还了，就大毛沾着的地儿不还。
不占理就是不占理，说不说都是不占理。
还是对八国联军没把反清的任务进行到底表示不满
苏联又不是没想过往中国扔核弹，要不是美国拦着1969年就扔了
可是我们为什么要和独裁者共情啊？要理解他，然后同意他的做法？就为了不被他打？那不就是回到丛林法则了么？现代文明全面倒退？
现在口径变了吧，为了抹黑美国脸早就不要了，以为大家都没有记忆。
那是911后遗症。
美国算一个吗？
不是的，乌克兰和北约谈在乌俄边境放描准俄罗斯的核武器，如果俄不岀兵，马上就会实现了。 如果放了，就不可能再挪走，普金岀兵的目的就是要去乌克兰军事化，因为今天同意不加入北约以后还可以再加，俄估计是希望在乌驻兵了，但欧洲估计也要疯了
那时好像中美勾兑的还起劲的时候
北约都不敢接受乌克兰、还会谈在俄乌边境放核武？
😍😍😍😍🤢
在乌驻军估计乌克兰无法接受。一个主权国家凭什么让你驻军
那就问问那位乌总统，他自己大声宣扬要把加入北约写进宪法，要在乌俄边境放核武
国际政治哪有什么道理可言 难道你真认为哪个国家采取军事行动是出于道义？
美国抢过中国的土地？毛子确实抢了很多土地，还杀了几十万中国人。
共情啥。只是说从他的角度来说，这个侵略必然发生。生物都有求存的本能。从美国来说，起初是推波助澜，乐见其成，现在后不后悔两说。有得也有失啊。
是啊，大毛和二毛打，看看算了，不用投入感情。
再补充一点：这些是中程超音速核导弹，五六分钟就能飞到莫斯科。这点时间连冲进地下庇护所躲避都来不及。兔子急了还咬人，俄罗斯是兔子吗？
因为俄罗斯对自身的定位赶不上地位的变化吧。 隔壁说过啊，俄罗斯这么大地方，nice一点自己迁都就好了嘛，大家都太平。 如果这仗没打赢，算不算俄罗斯自己作死？ 为啥非要别家nice呢？ 外交官夹着脑袋在对方领土上呆着，当然是要共情对方。 过去大王一个不高兴，就把使臣给砍了/流放了。
麻烦这位给俄皇军带个话，波罗的海三国不但跟莫斯科的距离和乌克兰差不多，离俄罗斯第二大城市圣彼得堡更是近在咫尺，守着俄罗斯重要出海军港，还早早加入了北约，打完乌克兰千万记得别放过这个三个国家啊。 普大帝可能是不太会用地图，还好有你们这些热心同志啊！
历史发展是利益和成本效益核算下怎么做
你这让人家还怎么洗
傻13，自卸手臂等着挨打？脑子里水太多…….
如果朝鲜投奔美国了，看中国什么反应? 好好的一个朝鲜怎么就被分裂成两个国家了? 虽然都是主权国家，但还真不是想投靠谁就投靠谁的。国与国之间的关系怎么可能这么简单。