场内秩序的破坏与重建:乌克兰问题审思
Return to the Library

Destruction and Reconstruction of Order in the Field: Reflections on Ukraine

场内秩序的破坏与重建:乌克兰问题审思

An assessment of the primary causes of the Ukraine crisis and possible long-term impacts of the conflict on the international order.


FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintCopy Link
Original text
PDF
English text
PDF
See an error? Drop us a line at
View the translated and original text side-by-side

Summary:

观点提要:

The outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine was sudden, but as to its root cause, it is the inevitable consequence of the complex security game between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine after the Cold War. The “gray rhino” of war has entered the field, and the order within the field will be an overlapping of destruction and reconstruction.

虽然此次乌克兰冲突的爆发事发突然,但论其根源,却是冷战后美俄乌三方错综复杂安全博弈的必然后果。一只战争的“灰犀牛”已经入场,场内的秩序将是破坏与重建的重叠。

After more than two years of havoc wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, and following Sweden’s becoming the first country in the world to declare the end of the pandemic on February 9, many European countries have followed suit by lifting all pandemic restrictions. Just as humanity seemed to have just seen a glimmer of light in this fierce battle against COVID-19, another hot war came unexpectedly to the Eastern European hinterland. Early in the morning of February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin made an emergency televised address announcing the decision to launch a special military operation in the Donbas region. This special military operation then quickly turned into a full-scale war in Ukraine. In the blink of an eye, a Cold War shroud once again loomed over the European continent, and people even wondered aloud whether World War III was coming.

经历了两年多新冠肺炎疫情的肆虐,随着2月9日瑞典作为全球首个国家宣布疫情结束,欧洲多国相继取消了所有疫情限制。当人类似乎刚刚在这场与COVID-19的鏖战中看到一丝曙光,另一场热战却猝不及防地降临在东欧腹地。2月24日清晨,俄罗斯总统普京发表紧急电视讲话,宣布决定在顿巴斯地区发起特别军事行动。随后,这场特别军事行动迅速演变成为乌克兰全面战争。转瞬间,冷战的阴影再度笼罩欧洲大陆,人们甚至惊呼第三次世界大战是不是要到来。

When there is an avalanche, no snowflake is innocent. The outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine was sudden, but as to its root cause, it is the inevitable consequence of the complex security game between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine after the Cold War. The “gray rhino” of war has entered the field, and the order within the field will be an overlapping of destruction and reconstruction.

雪崩的时候,没有一片雪花是无辜的。虽然此次乌克兰冲突的爆发事发突然,但论其根源,却是冷战后美俄乌三方错综复杂安全博弈的必然后果。一只战争的“灰犀牛”已经入场,场内的秩序将是破坏与重建的重叠。

The conflict in Ukraine is in essence the result of U.S.-Russian strategic interaction

乌克兰冲突的本质是美俄战略互动的结果

In Mackinder’s [1904] geopolitical map, whoever controls the “heartland” of Eastern Europe will control the world. It was through its control of Eastern Europe that the former Soviet Union established a bipolar pattern to counterbalance the hegemonic United States. The collapse of the Soviet Union emptied the “heart” of the Eurasian organism, leaving a power vacuum at the center of the continent. The United States and Russia then started a struggle over this region, based on the establishment of their respective security borders, that has lasted thirty years. Russia needed a strategic buffer zone to reduce its security pressure from the west, while the United States incorporated the former Soviet sphere of influence into its own strategic space through successive eastern expansions of NATO, squeezing Russia’s strategic space step by step, and thus increasing Russia’s security anxiety.

在麦金德的地缘政治版图中,谁控制了东欧“心脏地带”谁将控制世界。曾经的苏联也正是通过对东欧的控制建立了与霸权美国相抗衡的两极格局。苏联的解体从欧亚机体上掏空了这颗“心脏”,使欧亚大陆的中心形成了权力的真空。从此,美俄基于对彼此安全边界的确立,在这片区域开始了长达30年的争夺。俄罗斯需要战略缓冲带来减轻自己来自西部的安全压力,而美国则通过北约的历次东扩将曾经苏联的势力范围纳入自己的战略空间,一步步挤压俄罗斯的战略空间,从而加剧了俄罗斯的安全焦虑。

In The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about how Russia “is more likely to become a problem, unless America fosters a setting that helps to convince the Russians that the best choice for their country is an increasingly organic connection with a transatlantic Europe.” In 1993, then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin publicly endorsed Poland’s membership in the transatlantic alliance, and thought that the process was in Russia’s national interest. Current Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed joining NATO three times. It is thus clear that post-Cold War Russia has tried to ease relations with the United States and Europe. However, the United States has never treated Russia as an equal partner, always seeing it as an adversary, and ignoring Russia’s legitimate security concerns. Russia’s assertiveness in Ukraine is a projection of Russia’s stress-induced reaction under the heavy pressure of NATO’s eastward expansion. If one says Russia today has become an enemy of the United States and Europe by going to war against Ukraine, then this enemy role is also a consequence of the United States’ failure in shaping its post-Cold War security strategy toward Russia.

布热津斯基在《大棋局》中谈到,“如果美国不创造出一种环境使俄罗斯人相信与跨大西洋的欧洲结成越来越有机的联系是俄罗斯的最好选择,俄罗斯就更可能成为一个问题。”1993年,时任俄罗斯总统叶利钦曾公开针对波兰加入跨大西洋联盟表示赞同,并认为此进程符合俄罗斯国家利益,现任俄罗斯总统普京也曾三次提出加入北约。由此可见,冷战后的俄罗斯并非没有尝试缓和与美欧的关系。然而,美国却从未将俄罗斯作为平等的合作伙伴,一直将其视为对手,漠视俄罗斯合理的安全关切。俄罗斯在乌克兰的强硬作派,正是俄罗斯在北约东扩重压下应激反应的投射。如果说,今日俄罗斯因对乌克兰开战成为美欧的敌人,那么这个敌人的角色也是美国冷战后对俄安全战略塑造失败的后果。

Ukraine’s ingrained and intractable domestic contradictions are the root cause of the conflict

乌克兰国内矛盾的积重难返是冲突的根源

Ukraine’s own fragmentation and complexity have kept it mired in a muddle of interwoven internal and external problems, creating a diplomatic option dilemma, and eventually plunging it into the vortex of war. Many analysts believe that the U.S.-Russian rivalry dragged Ukraine into the war, but in essence, it was Ukraine’s own persistent ailments that created the battlefield for the great powers to fight over.

自身的分裂性与复杂性使乌克兰始终深陷内外交织的泥泞,带来外交抉择的两难困境,最终坠入战争的漩涡。诸多分析认为,美俄争夺将乌克兰拖入战争,但本质上,正是乌克兰自身的顽疾为大国争夺创造了战场。

First, there is Ukraine’s special geopolitical environment. For Russia, Ukraine is the last defensive barrier in a “strategic buffer zone,” while for NATO it is the front line of offense for containing Russia. Although NATO has always been ambiguous about Ukraine’s demand to join NATO, for Russia, which is highly sensitive to security needs, the Ukraine issue is a bottom line and a core interest. Forces from the East and West have never abandoned the struggle over Ukraine.

首先,乌克兰特殊的地缘环境。乌克兰之于俄罗斯是“战略缓冲带”最后的防御壁垒,之于北约它却是遏制俄罗斯的进攻最前沿。虽然对于乌克兰加入北约的诉求,北约始终暧昧不清,但对安全需求高度敏感的俄罗斯而言,乌克兰问题是底线、是核心利益。东西两方的势力始终没有放弃对乌克兰的争夺。

Second, there is the fragmented nature of the Ukrainian state itself. Ukraine itself is the product of a collapsing empire, and its ethnic, religious, and linguistic intricacies have always put the country at risk of fragmentation. Ukrainians predominate in the western part of Ukraine, while the Donbas region in the east has a high proportion of Russians. The western part is Catholic, while the eastern part is Eastern Orthodox. Although Ukraine was once predominantly Russian-speaking, the “de-Russification” process begun by Ukraine after the Crimean Crisis in 2014 has further intensified the East-West conflict. The Donbas region in the east is pro-Russian, while the west, centered on the capital Kiev, is pro-Western.

其次,乌克兰国家本身的分裂性。乌克兰本身就是帝国崩溃的产物,民族、宗教、语言的错综复杂使国家始终面临着分裂的风险。乌克兰人在乌克兰西部占主体,而东部顿巴斯地区俄罗斯人比重高。西部信仰天主教,而东部信仰东正教。虽然曾经乌克兰以俄语为主,但2014年克里米亚战争之后,乌克兰开始的“去俄语化”进程进一步激化了东西矛盾。东部顿巴斯地区亲俄,而西部以首都基辅为中心则亲西方。

Finally, there is the failure of Ukrainian state governance. Ukraine at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union was called the “breadbasket of Europe,” and had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, but after 30 years of economic development and political transformation, it has almost become a “failed state,” on the verge of collapse. Zhang Hong, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the neoliberal Washington Consensus led to the emergence of oligarchy in Ukraine’s political transformation, which thus caused the form of the Ukrainian state to develop from collusion to capture, and finally to the brink of a “failed state.”

最后,乌克兰国家治理的失败。苏联解体时的乌克兰被称为“欧洲粮仓”,拥有着全世界第三大核武库,而经历了30年的经济发展和政治转型,却几乎沦为“失败国家”,陷入崩溃边缘。中国社会科学院研究员张弘认为,新自由主义的“华盛顿共识”导致了乌克兰在政治转型中寡头政治的出现,从而使乌克兰国家形态从勾结型发展到俘获型,最终到达“失败国家”边缘。

To sum up, Ukraine was walking a tightrope due to the failure of state governance, the tearing of domestic fragmentation forces, and the disturbance of external forces. For Ukraine, it is safer to act as a “bridge between East and West” (Kissinger’s term) than to “choose sides.” However, both Yanukovych and Zelensky brought in external forces from one side to counter the other, ultimately eating away at their own country’s independence.

综上所述,乌克兰国家治理的失效,国内分裂势力的撕扯,加上外部势力的扰动,乌克兰始终在钢丝上行走。对于乌克兰而言,作为“东西方桥梁”(基辛格语)比“选边站”更为稳妥。然而,无论是亚努科维奇还是泽连斯基,都是引入一方外部势力来对抗另一方外部势力,最终却蚕食了自己国家的独立自主。

A New World?

一个新的世界?

The transformation of the international order, which has been explored continually in academic and policy circles in recent years, is based on three assumptions: first, the rapid development of China; second, the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic; and third, the disruption of the new technological revolution. While people are looking into the distance for the “metaverse,” international politics is regressing to the most primitive form—war of iron and blood. Once a war begins, it does not follow a fixed script. And though the outcome of the war remains unknown, the conflict in Ukraine is destined to have a profound impact on the transforming international order.

近年来,学术界和政策界一直在探讨的国际秩序转型基于以下三个假设:第一,中国的高速发展;第二,新冠肺炎疫情的冲击;第三,新一轮技术革命的颠覆。当人们在遥望“元宇宙”的时候,国际政治却以最原始的铁与血的战争形式回归。战争一旦开始,就不会照着固定的剧本演出。战果虽未知,但这场乌克兰冲突注定对正在转型中的国际秩序造成深远的影响。

First, there is a return of great power politics, a failure of the international system, and a dramatic change of the post-Cold War international order. The collapse of the bipolar system led to the global domination of the United States, and although there are descriptions of the international landscape as “one superpower, many strong powers” or “an age of nonpolarity,” the units in the system have never formed a counterweight to hegemony, and “following the strong” has become the action logic of many countries. Today, Russia, one of the permanent five [members of the United Nations Security Council] and a nuclear power, is demonstrating to NATO, led by the United States, in the form of a war. This will have a transformative impact on the international order. In his book After Hegemony, Robert Keohane suggests that the decline of hegemony does not necessarily lead to war, as the inertia of the system still maintains the order of the system. However, the withdrawal under Trump and the failure of international organizations in the COVID-19 epidemic have put the non-neutral character of the international system in starker relief, and raised numerous questions about the existing system of international institutions. Now, NATO’s eastward expansion has brought about a hot war in Eastern Europe, and this war is also a major test for the international system with the United Nations at its core.

首先,大国政治的回归,国际制度的失灵与冷战后国际秩序的剧变。两极格局的瓦解使美国独霸全球,虽然对国际格局存在着“一超多强”或“无极时代”的描述,但体系中的单元始终没有形成制衡霸权的力量,“追随强者”却成为众多国家的行为逻辑。如今,俄罗斯作为五大常任理事国和有核国家,以战争的形式向以美国为首的北约示威,对国际秩序的影响是具有转折性的。基欧汉在《霸权之后》中提出,霸权的衰落不一定会导向战争,因为制度的惯性依然会维护体系的秩序。然而,特朗普时期的退群、新冠肺炎疫情中国际组织的失效,国际制度的非中性特征更加凸显,给现有的国际制度体系带来了众多的诘难。如今,北约东扩带来东欧的热战,此次战争也是对以联合国为核心的国际制度的重大考验。

Second, the European geo-security landscape is facing a shake-up. On February 24, the day Russia launched its military special operation, German Chancellor Scholz said, “This is a terrible day for Ukraine and a dark day for Europe.” The United States, in conjunction with the EU, then imposed a series of harsh sanctions against Russia, including the announcement on February 27 that some Russian banks would be kicked out of SWIFT. Germany even changed its previous position of not providing weapons to the conflict zone and provided weapons to Ukraine. If the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact gave rise to the “NATO obsolescence theory” and Trump’s alienation of allies led to the “brain death of NATO,” then Biden’s diplomatic strategy to repair the alliance, coupled with the impact of the Ukraine conflict, could become a shot in the arm for NATO. On February 26, President Biden spoke publicly about the possibility of Finland and Sweden joining NATO. However, activating NATO would only worsen continental Europe’s security dilemma, bringing about an imbalance in the overall geo-security environment in Europe and a surge in the probability of a new Cold War.

其次,欧洲地缘安全格局面临重新洗牌。2月24日,俄罗斯发动军事特别行动的当天,德国总理朔尔茨讲话,“这对乌克兰来说是可怕的一天,对欧洲来说是黑暗的一天”。随后,美国联合欧盟对俄罗斯进行了一系列严厉的制裁,其中包括2月27日宣布将俄罗斯部分银行踢出SWIFT。德国更是改变为之前不为冲突地区提供武器的立场,向乌克兰提供武器。如果说华约的解体引发了“北约过时论”,特朗普对盟友的疏离导致了“北约脑死亡”,那么拜登修复同盟的外交战略加上乌克兰冲突的冲击,可能成为北约的一剂强心针。2月26日,拜登公开谈及芬兰和瑞典加入北约的可能性。然而,激活北约只会恶化欧洲大陆的安全困境,带来欧洲整体地缘安全环境的失衡,新冷战发生的概率激增。

Lastly, with U.S. global strategy facing “worries east and west,” China needs to take firm hold of the strategic moment and maintain strategic stability. In 2011, as the United States began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama proposed an “eastward” turn in U.S. global strategy—a “pivot to Asia.” With the rapid development of China’s economy, China is facing increasingly strong strategic pressure from the United States. In 2017, Trump positioned China as a “strategic competitor” in the U.S. National Security Strategy and proposed an “Indo-Pacific Strategy” aimed at containing China. After the Biden administration took office, it intensified competition with China, and the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy report was released on February 11. However, the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine has required the United States to “look west” again and consider the geopolitical security challenges facing itself and its allies in Europe. A possible “east-west” shift in U.S. global strategy could bring dramatic changes to China’s strategic environment. China needs to maintain its strategic sobriety and strategic determination at all times, and resolutely follow the path of peaceful development in the midst of turmoil and crisis.

最后,美国的全球战略将面临“东走西顾”,中国需要把握战略时机,保持战略定力。2011年,美国开始从阿富汗和伊拉克撤军,奥巴马提出了美国全球战略的“东走”转向——“重返亚太”。随着中国经济的高速发展,面临着来自美国越来越强的战略压力。2017年,特朗普在《美国国家安全战略》中将中国定位为“战略竞争对手”,提出旨在遏制中国的“印太战略”。拜登政府上台后,加剧了与中国的竞争,并于2月11日发布了拜登政府的印太战略报告。然而,乌克兰冲突的爆发使美国需要重新“西顾”,考虑自己和盟友在欧洲所面临的地缘安全挑战。美国全球战略可能呈现的“东走西顾”会给中国的战略环境带来巨大的变化。中国需要时刻保持战略清醒和战略定力,在动荡与危机中坚定走好和平发展之路。

To top

Cite This Page

姚璐 (Yao Lu). "Destruction and Reconstruction of Order in the Field: Reflections on Ukraine [场内秩序的破坏与重建:乌克兰问题审思]". CSIS Interpret: China, original work published in China Social Sciences Network [中国社会科学网], March 1, 2022

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintCopy Link