By : C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout Published on February 4, 2022
U.S. troops deploy for Europe from Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on February 3, 2022. The U.S. plans to deploy 3,000 troops to fortify NATO forces in Eastern Europe amid fears Russia could invade Ukraine, the Pentagon said.
Henry Kissinger: To settle the Ukraine crisis, start at the end By Henry A. Kissinger March 5, 2014
Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.
Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.
Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
Default Mono Sans Mono Serif Sans Serif Comic Fancy Small Caps Default X-Small Small Medium Large X-Large XX-Large Default Outline Dark Outline Light Outline Dark Bold Outline Light Bold Shadow Dark Shadow Light Shadow Dark Bold Shadow Light Bold Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Tom Toles goes global View Photos A collection of cartoons about international news.
The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.
The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.
Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.
Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
Default Mono Sans Mono Serif Sans Serif Comic Fancy Small Caps Default X-Small Small Medium Large X-Large XX-Large Default Outline Dark Outline Light Outline Dark Bold Outline Light Bold Shadow Dark Shadow Light Shadow Dark Bold Shadow Light Bold Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% The best editorial cartoons of 2014 (so far) View Photos A collection of cartoons from around the country.
2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.
4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
俄国入侵乌克兰了吗？
是的。
乌克兰人民惨吗？
是的。
应该反对战争吗？
是的。
应该谴责俄国吗？
是的。
应该同情乌克兰吗？
是的。
如果你对上面的回答都是是的，那么你是一个好网友。
但这些加起来，也敌不过下面的一个问题：
可以反思一下战争的根源吗？
如果你说“是的”，那对不起，你的“好网友”称号被取消了。因为你“反智”了，“反人类”了，“没有人性”了。
呵呵。
这就是某些网友对理性思考的态度一种态度，更准确地说，是一种情绪。因为他们不是想分析问题，也不是想解决问题，而只是想站队，站他们的队。
“站队”不够高大上，所以要扯一面大旗：人性和正义。不同意他们，就是缺乏人性与正义为敌。
但他们越是气急败坏，就越难让人站他们的队。因为他们的气急败坏让他们的双标显得更加突兀。
因为他们（多数，不是全部，）的人性与正义，强权含量非常高，人性含量非常低。
在南斯拉夫平民遭到无差别轰炸的时候，他们的正义和人性在哪里？
在伊拉克阿富汗平民因为美国入侵而陷入苦难时，他们的正义和人性在哪里？
没有表现。呵呵，不是没有，是没有表现。
为啥？
最可能的原因：
因为杀人的是强权。
因为苦难的是不依顺强权者。
除了这两个原因，如果还有别的不跟他们的人性和正义标准矛盾的，欢迎网友找出来。
这种有区别的同情，有区别的正义，居然还跳出来指责别人，反对别人站在统一标准和立场上的反思。
可笑吗？
不可笑。不但不可笑，还很正常。因为他们就只能如此，必然如此。
他们只有情绪，加上理性，接受理性，他们就不是他们了。
别说俺支持战争，俺谴责战争。
俺谴责战争的发动者，更谴责战争的挑起者。
具体地说，俄是发动者，乌政府和北约是挑起者。
呵呵。
反对因为我就是一个普通人，死了普通话人，正常人应该坚决反对。
反思？谁反思？网友反思还是政客，当权者反思？网友是必须要替他们做他们的工作反思吗？不是必须的。
最好阅读原文，我用谷歌翻译翻译，稍微修改了点儿。
原文Link: https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/?amp
By : C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout
Published on February 4, 2022
U.S. troops deploy for Europe from Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on February 3, 2022. The U.S. plans to deploy 3,000 troops to fortify NATO forces in Eastern Europe amid fears Russia could invade Ukraine, the Pentagon said.
乔姆斯基：美国对乌克兰和俄罗斯的态度"离开了理性话语的领域"
由于美国无视俄罗斯总统弗拉德米尔·普京的所有安全要求，并声称俄罗斯即将入侵乌克兰，从而散布恐惧的狂热，俄乌危机继续有增无减。
世界知名公共知识分子诺姆乔姆斯基在新的关于正在进行的俄罗斯 - 乌克兰危机的独家专访中，概述了美国在乌克兰在北大西洋公约组织 (NATO) 成员身份问题上的固执的致命危险，即使西方主要盟友早先已经否决了美国在那个方向的努力。 乔姆斯基也试图阐明今天共和党人似乎在俄罗斯问题上存在分歧的原因。
乔姆斯基?? — 他在知识界的贡献与伽利略、牛顿和笛卡尔相提并论 — 对学术和科学探究的各个领域产生了巨大影响，包括语言学、逻辑和数学、计算机科学、心理学、媒体研究、哲学、政治和国际事务。 他出版了约 150 本书，并获得了包括悉尼和平奖和京都奖（相当于日本的诺贝尔奖）在内的数十个极负盛名的奖项，以及数十个来自世界最著名大学的荣誉博士学位。 乔姆斯基是麻省理工学院名誉教授，目前是亚利桑那大学的桂冠教授。
The following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
CJ Polychroniou：自从美国降级的提议未能满足俄罗斯的任何安全要求，俄罗斯和乌克兰之间的紧张局势继续升级，不容乐观。因此，如果说俄乌边境危机实际上源于美国对乌克兰加入北约的顽固立场，这不是更准确吗？在同样的背景下，很难想象华盛顿对墨西哥想要加入莫斯科驱动的军事联盟的假设事件的反应是什么？
诺姆·乔姆斯基：我们几乎不需要在后一个问题上徘徊。没有哪个国家敢在前总统富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福的战争部长亨利·史汀生所说的"我们这里的小区域"采取这样的举动，当时他谴责所有势力范围（除了我们自己的实际上— 这几乎不是仅限于西半球）。今天，国务卿安东尼·布林肯 (Antony Blinken) 坚决谴责俄罗斯声称拥有"势力范围"，我们坚决反对这一概念（同样保留）。
当我们这个小地区的一个国家接近与俄罗斯建立军事联盟时，当然有一个著名的案例，那就是 1962 年的导弹危机。然而，情况与乌克兰完全不同。约翰·肯尼迪总统正在将他对古巴的恐怖主义战争升级为入侵威胁；与此形成鲜明对比的是，乌克兰因其可能加入敌对军事联盟而面临威胁。苏联领导人尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫鲁莽地决定向古巴提供导弹，也是为了稍微纠正庞大的美国。在肯尼迪对赫鲁晓夫提出的相互削减进攻性武器的提议做出回应后，美国军队的优势是和平时期历史上最大规模的军事集结。已经遥遥领先。我们知道这导致了什么。
乌克兰的紧张局势极为严重，俄罗斯将军队集中在乌克兰边境。一段时间以来，俄罗斯的立场相当明确。外交部长谢尔盖·拉夫罗夫在联合国的新闻发布会上明确表示：?主要问题是我们关于不允许北约进一步向东扩张和部署可能威胁到北约领土的打击武器的明确立场。俄罗斯联邦。?正如他以前经常说的那样，普京不久后也重申了这一点。
历史学家理查德·萨夸（Richard Sakwa）观察到"北约的存在变得合理，因为有必要管理其扩大所引发的威胁" --- 这是一个合理的判断。
有一个简单的方法来处理武器的部署：不要部署它们。没有理由这样做。美国。可能声称他们是防御性的，但俄罗斯肯定不这么看，而且是有道理的。
进一步扩张的问题更加复杂。这个问题可以追溯到 30 多年前，当时苏维埃社会主义共和国联盟正在瓦解。俄罗斯、美国之间进行了广泛的谈判。和德国。 （核心问题是德国统一。）提出了两个愿景。苏联领导人米哈伊尔·戈尔巴乔夫提出了一个从里斯本到符拉迪沃斯托克的欧亚安全体系，没有军事集团。美国拒绝它：北约留下，俄罗斯的华沙条约消失。
出于显而易见的原因，德国在敌对军事联盟中的统一对俄罗斯来说不是小事。尽管如此，戈尔巴乔夫还是同意了，但前提是：不向东方扩张。乔治 H.W. 总统布什和国务卿詹姆斯贝克同意。用他们对戈尔巴乔夫的话来说："不仅对苏联，而且对其他欧洲国家，重要的是要保证如果美国在北约框架内保持其在德国的存在，而不是北约现有军队的一寸管辖权将向东扩展。"
"东"是指东德。至少在公开场合，没有人会考虑其他任何事情。这是各方都同意的。德国领导人对此更加明确。他们为俄罗斯同意统一而欣喜若狂，他们最不想要的就是新的问题。
关于这个问题有广泛的学术研究, Mary Sarotte、Joshua Shifrinson 和其他人，争论到底是谁说了什么，他们的意思是什么，它的地位是什么，等等。这是一项有趣且富有启发性的工作，但归根结底，当尘埃落定时，我从解密记录中引用了什么。
总裁H.W.布什几乎履行了这些承诺。比尔·克林顿总统起初也是如此，直到 1999 年北约成立 50 周年。一些人猜测， 鉴于即将到来的选举中波兰人的投票。他已接纳波兰、匈牙利和捷克共和国加入北约。乔治·W·布什总统—在他入侵阿富汗 20 周年之际在媒体上庆祝的可爱的傻爷爷— 降低要求, 他带进了波罗的海国家和其他国家。 2008年，他邀请乌克兰加入北约，戳中熊眼。除了密切的历史关系和大量以俄罗斯为导向的人口外，乌克兰是俄罗斯的地缘战略中心地带。德国和法国否决了布什的鲁莽邀请，但它仍然在桌面上。正如他所明确表示的那样，没有俄罗斯领导人会接受这一点，当然戈尔巴乔夫也不会接受。
就像在俄罗斯边境部署进攻性武器一样，有一个直截了当的答案。在整个冷战期间，乌克兰可以拥有与奥地利和两个北欧国家相同的地位：中立，但与西方紧密相连，并且相当安全，在他们选择的程度上是欧盟的一部分。
美国坚决反对这一结果，高高在上地宣布其对国家主权的热情奉献是不可侵犯的：必须尊重乌克兰加入北约的权利。这种有原则的立场在美国可能会受到称赞，但它肯定会在包括克里姆林宫在内的世界大部分地区引起响亮的笑声。世界几乎没有意识到我们对主权的鼓舞人心的奉献，特别是在特别激怒俄罗斯的三个案例中：伊拉克、利比亚和科索沃-塞尔维亚。
伊拉克无需讨论：美国侵略几乎激怒了所有人。北约对利比亚和塞尔维亚的袭击是俄罗斯在 90 年代急剧衰落期间的一记耳光，但在美国却披上了正义的人道主义外衣。宣传。正如其他地方充分记录的那样，这一切在审查下很快就消失了。以及美国最富有的记录对国家主权的敬畏无需审查。
有时声称加入北约可以增加波兰和其他国家的安全。更有说服力的理由是，北约成员国通过加剧紧张局势来威胁他们的安全。东欧问题专家、历史学家理查德·萨克瓦（Richard Sakwa）观察到，"北约的存在变得合理，因为有必要应对其扩大所引发的威胁" ---- 这是一个合理的判断。
关于乌克兰以及如何应对那里非常危险且日益严重的危机还有很多话要说，但也许这足以表明没有必要激化局势并继续前进，这很可能会成为一场灾难性的战争。
事实上，美国有一种超现实的品质。拒绝奥地利式的乌克兰中立。我们政策制定者非常清楚，在可预见的未来，乌克兰加入北约不是一个选择。当然，我们可以抛开关于主权神圣性的荒谬姿态。所以，为了一个他们一时不相信的原则，为了追求一个他们知道遥不可及的目标，美国冒着可能演变成令人震惊的灾难的风险。表面上似乎难以理解，但有似是而非的帝国计算。
我们可能会问，为什么普京在实地采取了如此好战的立场。有一个家庭手工业试图解开这个谜团：他是个疯子吗？他是否打算迫使欧洲成为俄罗斯的卫星？他在干什么？
找出答案的一种方法是听他说什么：多年来，普京一直试图诱使美国对他和拉夫罗夫外长一再提出的要求给予一些关注，但徒劳无功。一种可能性是，展示武力是实现这一目标的一种方式。消息灵通的分析师已经提出了这一建议。如果是这样，它似乎已经成功，至少在有限的方面。
德国和法国早前已经否决了美国。努力向乌克兰提供会员资格。那么为什么美国如此热衷于北约东扩，以至于将俄罗斯入侵乌克兰视为迫在眉睫，即使乌克兰领导人自己似乎并不这么认为？乌克兰是从什么时候开始成为民主灯塔的？
观察正在发生的事情确实很好奇。美国正在大力煽风点火，而乌克兰则要求其淡化言论。虽然对于恶魔普京为何如此行事存在很多动荡，但美国动机很少受到审查。原因很熟悉：根据定义，美国动机是崇高的，即使它实施这些动机的努力可能被误导了。
不过，借用前国家安全顾问麦乔治·邦迪（McGeorge Bundy）的话说，这个问题可能值得深思，至少?机翼中的野人?指的是那些敢于将华盛顿置于其他地方适用的标准的不可救药的人物。
关于北约目的的著名口号提出了一个可能的答案：将俄罗斯拒之门外，将德国拒之门外，并让美国拒之门外在。俄罗斯出局了，遥遥无期。德国倒下了。剩下的问题是美国是否将在欧洲更准确地说，应该负责。并非所有人都悄悄地接受了这一世界事务的原则，其中包括：戴高乐，他将欧洲的概念从大西洋带到了乌拉尔；前德国总理威利勃兰特的东方政治；还有法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙（Emmanuel Macron），他目前的外交举措引起了华盛顿的极大不满。
如果乌克兰危机得到和平解决，那将是欧洲事务，打破二战后美国的?大西洋主义?观念。稳稳地坐在驾驶座上。这甚至可能是进一步走向欧洲独立的先例，甚至可能会朝着戈尔巴乔夫的愿景迈进。随着中国的?一带一路?倡议从东方侵入，全球秩序的更大问题出现了。
在外交事务方面，几乎一如既往，我们看到两党对乌克兰的狂热。然而，尽管国会中的共和党人正在敦促乔·拜登总统对俄罗斯采取更激进的立场，但这个原始法西斯主义基地正在质疑党的路线。为什么？共和党人在乌克兰问题上的分歧告诉我们共和党人正在发生什么？
不能轻易地将今天的共和党说成是一个真正的政党，参与到一个正常运转的民主制度中。更贴切的是，将该组织描述为?"激进的叛乱分子??意识形态极端，蔑视事实和妥协，不屑一顾其政治反对派的合法性"。?美国政治分析家托马斯。曼与美国企业的诺曼。奥恩斯坦的这种描述来自十年前，唐纳德。特朗普之前。到目前为止，它已经过时了。在首字母缩略词"GOP"中，剩下的是"O"。
我不知道特朗普煽动成崇拜邪教的民众基础是否质疑共和党领导人的激进立场，或者他们是否关心。证据不足。与共和党密切相关的主要右翼人物正在向欧洲舆论的右翼以及那些希望在美国保留一些民主表象的人的立场迈进。他们对匈牙利总统维克托·欧尔班的"非自由民主"的热情支持甚至超越了特朗普，称赞它拯救了西方文明，同样如此。
这种对欧尔班废除民主的热烈欢迎可能会让人想起意大利法西斯领导人贝尼托·墨索里尼对"拯救了欧洲文明[以便]法西斯主义为自己赢得的功绩将永存历史"的赞誉；过去 40 年盛行的新自由主义运动的受人尊敬的创始人路德维希·冯·米塞斯 (Ludwig von Mises) 在其 1927 年的经典自由主义中的思想。
福克斯新闻评论员塔克。卡尔森一直是狂热分子中最直言不讳的。许多共和党参议员要么支持他，要么声称对欧尔班的所作所为一无所知，这是对全球权力巅峰时期文盲的非凡坦白。备受推崇的资深参议员查尔斯。格拉斯利报告说，他仅从卡尔森的电视展览中了解匈牙利，并表示赞同。这样的表演告诉我们很多关于激进叛乱的事情。在乌克兰问题上，卡尔森与共和党领导层决裂，他问为什么我们应该对"丝毫不关心美国的外国?之间"的争吵采取任何立场。
无论人们对国际事务有什么看法，很明显，我们已经把理性话语的领域远远抛在了后面，并且正在进入一个没有吸引力的历史领域，委婉地说。
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html
Henry Kissinger: To settle the Ukraine crisis, start at the end By Henry A. Kissinger March 5, 2014Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.
Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.
Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
Default Mono Sans Mono Serif Sans Serif Comic Fancy Small Caps Default X-Small Small Medium Large X-Large XX-Large Default Outline Dark Outline Light Outline Dark Bold Outline Light Bold Shadow Dark Shadow Light Shadow Dark Bold Shadow Light Bold Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Tom Toles goes globalThe European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.
The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.
Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.
Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
Default Mono Sans Mono Serif Sans Serif Comic Fancy Small Caps Default X-Small Small Medium Large X-Large XX-Large Default Outline Dark Outline Light Outline Dark Bold Outline Light Bold Shadow Dark Shadow Light Shadow Dark Bold Shadow Light Bold Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% The best editorial cartoons of 2014 (so far)2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.
4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
网友是引起战争的人吗？替谁反思？出于对国家形式分析的爱好，可以分析，反思就是替谁反思了，这是我的理解。
而且要区别哪个政府，再决定好话坏话。
是这个意思吗？
那大傻还不自知，依然在那里光着向世人展示他华丽的皇袍。
不明白你什么意思。没必要站在政府、政客、当权者的上面说任何话，作为普通人说话不好吗？当然，愿意替政府反思的，当然可以，个人爱好无可厚非，但不是在支持杀戮和侵略的基础上。
是不是又想说乌克兰新纳粹？且不说亚速营中大多数是俄罗斯人，这就是发动侵略战争理由？
南联盟被北约轰炸，你自己去查一下，南联盟违反了多少联合国决议
是政府、媒体就壞了，如現在西方的。
俄国不应该发动战争。
同样的，美国也不应该以失信和威逼来刺激俄国发动战争。
乌克兰人民不该受此横难，
伊拉克人民也不该。
叙利亚人民也不该。
俺认为谁也没有权力发动战争，不论是美国还是俄国。
谁也不应该受难，无论是美国制造的还是俄国制造的。
不是所有的，但有些是。
社区，学区的选举了，还能干什么？你怎么样去杜绝战争？你是可以去代替当权者去杜绝？为什么一个普通的网友表达了反战的声音，你却要求他去杜绝战争和侵略？你怎么不去杜绝一个给看看。你用对政府的要求去要求一个普通人，这不是你口里的双标，又是什么？你又干了些什么实实在在的东西不虚伪？
没有一个政府是完美的，没有一家媒体是完美的，是不是就要完全不相信主流媒体，反而去相信那些自媒体？美国上一次选举，多少人就是因为偏听偏信自媒体、谣言和阴谋论的蛊惑而去攻占国会。
你让中国也不去相信主流媒体，而是自媒体吗？中国出点什么事，就说是自媒体的谣言。这又是不是双标。
你想说什么？南联盟是北约专门轰炸平民？南联盟自己可以不遵守联合国多次警告和决议？伊拉克可以入侵科威特？多国部队攻击，就是伤了平民
幼儿园的小朋友的水平了!谁会胜过一阵子就清楚了。
你注意一下逻辑，少捣浆糊，南联盟平民在轰炸中当然是受害者，但南联盟政府才是始作俑者，就如同
日本平民挨了原子弹，可以说是受害者，但是日本政府挑起侵略战争才是根本原因
美国，俄国，中国，政府都有既得利益者在带风向。
看到既得利益者的手，不被它支配，就是每个人都能产生的积极作用。
看不到既得利益者的手而被它支配，就没有积极作用。
看不到既得利益者的手，反而盲目地反对理性的声音，那就差不多是帮凶了。
人类社会之所以能继续下去是因为永远都有人在任何风向下，任何时代，都勇敢地遵从人的本心去为普通人呐喊和发声。
普通人先要同情和帮助普通人，再去替政府反思，而不是高高在上扮演政府，指点江山，俯视和我们一样的普通人。俄国的百姓也一样会受他们当权者发动的战争的苦，作为和他们一样的人，一样应该被同情，
如果有人反对美国伊拉克和阿富汗战争，却又支持俄罗斯入侵乌克兰算双标吗？这些战争中都有平民伤亡。
如果俄把联盟扩张到墨西哥古巴，美国入侵墨西哥古巴，那么俄美没有差别。
如果俄国已经欺骗了美国五次，并要欺骗第六次，把加拿大也变成俄国的盟友，美国入侵加拿大，那么美俄没有区别。
如果俄国如中国一样，能容忍美国把萨德部署到韩国，那么俄国也不会入侵乌克兰。
问题是：战争的导火索是：美国要把乌克兰纳入北约，不论它在不在乌克兰部署导弹，俄国都不能容忍。所以，战争爆发。
你说这两者有可比性吗？
俄国屠杀别国平民，俄国邪恶。
美国屠杀别国平民，美国邪恶。
这是另一个问题。
相反，俄罗斯倒是在和约上签字，要乌克兰销毁核武器，保证乌克兰别国不受攻击