美國決策者究竟要把主力擺在東線(東亞)，還是西線(歐洲)?(上)

美國決策者究竟要把主力擺在東線(東亞)，還是西線(歐洲)?(上)

---鄉親們現在把目光聚焦在「太陽花學運」、「反服貿」與處境危殆的台灣是對的，但做為建州派與建州支持者，我們不要忘了外面風雨飄搖的世界，因為那些衝突點的命運會牽動台灣的命運

一

在烏克蘭危機發生、以美國為首的西方世界開始對俄羅斯進行制裁之後，智庫的專家們、學術研究機構或教育機構的學者們以及不少媒體開始談論西方與俄羅斯又陷入冷戰的頻率增加了。到底西方與俄羅斯是否已陷入冷戰或是否會陷入冷戰，政界、智庫界、學界與媒體界有一些不同的觀察、評估、判斷與說法，因為這個議題不管是對世人或台灣人，都事關重大，所以「台灣建州運動」會對這個重大歷史事件密切與持續地進行觀察，並會不定期地發表觀察心得與報告，讓與建州運動有較密切聯繫的台灣與台美鄉親能有較寬廣的國際視野與較正確的戰略眼光。

建州派過去就常就國防 、戰略與軍事議題發表文章，我們最近開始就以美國為首的民主陣營如何思考制訂世界大戰略與東西兩線作戰的戰略的問題進行討論 ，關於這個問題的討論，建州派與世界上少數幾個人不約而同地開始進行。

我們在3/15/2014發表的 「自由世界在東西兩個戰場面對中俄兩個邪惡帝國 ，我們現在活在比以前更危險的年代」一文中說:

//--------如果中國與俄羅斯這兩個邪惡帝國同時在歐陸與東亞發動戰爭，那回到第二次世界大戰前的規模的美國陸軍顯然將會難以應付。倘若這種狀況發生，美國武裝部隊與日軍、澳軍必須在東亞打一場決定性的戰爭，而歐陸戰場則必須先交給以英德法三國的武裝部隊為主力的歐美聯軍，待亞洲戰場取得決定性的勝利並將維持秩序的任務交給日澳聯軍後，再將整補後的美軍主力投入歐洲戰場。//

//由於歐亞陸塊的俄羅斯聯邦與中華人民共和國的邪惡政權與威權統治者還有他們統治的人民多數都懷抱著帝國夢或者病態的民族主義，所以現在美國又面臨了類似1950年代的狀況，它必須同時處理東西兩個戰場的問題，這是一項十分艱鉅的歷史使命與任務。比較令人憂慮的是，現在美國的領導層似乎缺乏當年的領導層領導世界的雄心壯志，而美國的財經力量也尚未完全從2008年的金融風暴及經濟蕭條中恢復過來，許多美國民眾也尚未從孤立主義中甦醒過來。//

//世人現在必須有正確的認知: (1)中國與俄羅斯都具有深厚的威權統治的文化與傳統，也都具有源遠流長的帝國夢、領土擴張的野心及建立勢力範圍的歷史。(2)先拉攏中國、與中國締結戰略聯盟、打倒俄羅斯邪惡帝國的戰略不可行，也不能複製，若華府試圖複製尼克森的「中國牌」，那美國肯定會丟掉東亞與西太平洋，中國肯定會利用這個戰略機遇期，將美國勢力逐出亞太。//

//-------現在烏克蘭危機發生，-----------美俄關係勢必陷入長期的對抗，甚至新冷戰就要到來，所以現在老共及其同路人又雀躍不已，他們認為，美俄可能陷入長期的對抗，華府可能又會被迫對北京示好或示弱，甚至又會試圖與北京進行戰略結盟，這樣中國就可以利用這次的戰略機遇期，在美國的默許或無力反對下，在它的周邊進行蠶食或鯨吞，恢復它的帝國版圖或建立它的勢力範圍。//

//我們現在只有希望與期待: 在西線從事強化對俄國進一步的擴張進行反制與嚇阻的力量之同時，華府「重返東亞」的大戰略及「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設、佈署及準備不變，否則必然會鼓舞中國利用機會進行擴張。//

//現在克里姆林宮製造了烏克蘭這麼大的危機，宣誓要「重返東亞」的華府看起來已不可能再認真及有效地執行「重返東亞」的大戰略及「海空一體作戰」的戰略(這要求把60%的海軍佈署在印太戰區)，我們可以說，烏克蘭危機在事實上至少已在外交上讓華府的注意力轉向，至於華府原先宣誓要在2020年之前完成「重返東亞」的軍事佈署計劃是否會因此而被改變或調整，現在已很難說。在烏克蘭危機出現前，美國國防部內部就已傳出「重返東亞」的政策已在被進行重估，因為預算刪減導致國防部必須進行裁軍計劃。我們現在仍無法知道烏克蘭危機是否會讓國防部對裁軍的計劃又再加以重估或反轉。//.

3/17/2014 ，我們又在「日本必須整軍經武，但也必須服從美國的大戰略」一文中說:

//-----------美國已身不由己，被迫再度面臨東西兩線的兩面作戰態勢(處於外線作戰的位置)。//

//建州運動的估算是，這種態勢將會持續一段時間，但我們無法知道這會持續多久。//

//美國與美國在東西兩線的盟友與安全夥伴(包括台灣、台灣建州運動)必須設法先解決一個戰場的壓力，然後集中全力來面對及解決另一個戰場。//

//但無論如何，美國必須設法儘速解除這種兩面作戰的態勢。

//經過分析，我們認為，美國應該設法調整它的中國政策，運用目前已出現的若干條件或若干優勢，加速創造其他若干條件或優勢，將中國和平演變，推翻中共政權，扶植親美國與西方的政權，建立民主體制，剷除欲挑戰及取代美國的世界領導權的中華邪惡帝國，若能完成這個任務，美國與它的盟國就能先解除它們在東線作戰的壓力，這猶如第一次世界大戰時，德意志帝國扶植列寧，建立共黨政權，並從東戰場撤退，德軍因而解除了東線作戰的壓力一樣 。//

//也就是說，應該在東線採取政治攻勢，進行積極的政治作戰。//

二

我們先來讀最近幾個月在台灣爆紅的美國現實派國際關係學者Prof. John J. Mearsheimer最近發表的一篇文章: 

“Getting Ukraine Wrong”
New York Times
3/13/2014

President Obama has decided to get tough with Russia by imposing sanctions and increasing support for Ukraine’s new government. This is a big mistake. [歐巴馬決定對俄羅斯強硬進行制裁，並增加對烏克蘭新政府的援助，這是一個很大的錯誤。]This response is based on the same faulty logic that helped precipitate the crisis. Instead of resolving the dispute, it will lead to more trouble. The White House view, widely shared by Beltway insiders, is that the United States bears no responsibility for causing the current crisis. In their eyes, it’s all President Vladimir V. Putin’s fault — and his motives are illegitimate. This is wrong. Washington played a key role in precipitating this dangerous situation, and Mr. Putin’s behavior is motivated by the same geopolitical considerations that influence all great powers, including the United States.


The taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West. The Russians have intensely disliked but tolerated substantial NATO expansion, including the accession of Poland and the Baltic countries. But when NATO announced in 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine “will become members of NATO,” Russia drew a line in the sand. Georgia and Ukraine are not just states in Russia’s neighborhood; they are on its doorstep. Indeed, Russia’s forceful response in its August 2008 war with Georgia was driven in large part by Moscow’s desire to prevent Georgia from joining NATO and integrating into the West.


Fast forward to last November, when it seemed that President Viktor F. Yanukovych would sign an agreement with the European Union that was designed to deepen Ukraine’s integration with the West and greatly reduce Moscow’s influence there. Mr. Putin offered Ukraine a better deal in response, which Mr. Yanukovych accepted. That decision led to protests in western Ukraine, where there is strong pro-Western sentiment and much hostility to Moscow.
The Obama administration then made a fatal mistake by backing the protesters, which helped escalate the crisis and eventually led to the toppling of Mr. Yanukovych. A pro-Western government then took over in Kiev. The United States ambassador to Ukraine, who had been encouraging the protesters, proclaimed it “a day for the history books.”


Mr. Putin, of course, didn’t see things that way. He viewed these developments as a direct threat to Russia’s core strategic interests.


Who can blame him? After all, the United States, which has been unable to leave the Cold War behind, has treated Russia as a potential threat since the early 1990s and ignored its protests about NATO’s expansion and its objections to America’s plan to build missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.


One might expect American policymakers to understand Russia’s concerns about Ukraine joining a hostile alliance. After all, the United States is deeply committed to the Monroe Doctrine, which warns other great powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere.


But few American policymakers are capable of putting themselves in Mr. Putin’s shoes. This is why they were so surprised when he moved additional troops into Crimea, threatened to invade eastern Ukraine, and made it clear Moscow would use its considerable economic leverage to undermine any regime in Kiev that was hostile to Russia.


When Mr. Putin explained why he was playing hardball, Mr. Obama responded that the Russian leader "seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations." But the Russian leader is obviously not talking with lawyers; he sees this conflict in geopolitical, not legal terms.


Mr. Putin’s view is understandable. Because there is no world government to protect states from one another, major powers are acutely sensitive to threats — especially near their borders — and they sometimes act ruthlessly to address potential dangers. International law and human rights concerns take a back seat when vital security issues are at stake.


Mr. Obama would be advised to stop talking to lawyers and start thinking like a strategist. If he did, he would realize that punishing the Russians while trying to pull Ukraine into the West’s camp will only make matters worse.


The West has few options for inflicting pain on Russia, while Moscow has many cards to play against Ukraine and the West. It could invade eastern Ukraine or annex Crimea, because Ukraine regrettably relinquished the nuclear arsenal it inherited when the Soviet Union broke up and thus has no counter to Russia’s conventional superiority.


Furthermore, Russia could stop cooperating with America over Iran and Syria; it could badly damage Ukraine’s struggling economy and even cause serious economic problems in the European Union due to its role as a major gas supplier. Not surprisingly, most Europeans aren’t very enthusiastic about employing costly sanctions against Russia.


But even if the West could impose significant costs on Russia, Mr. Putin is unlikely to back down. When vital interests are at stake, countries are invariably willing to suffer great pain to ensure their security. There is no reason to think Russia, given its history, is an exception.


Mr. Obama should adopt a new policy toward Russia and Ukraine — one that seeks to prevent war by recognizing Russia’s security interests and upholding Ukraine’s territorial integrity.


To achieve those goals, the United States should emphasize that Georgia and Ukraine will not become NATO members. It should make clear that America will not interfere in future Ukrainian elections or be sympathetic to a virulently anti-Russian government in Kiev. And it should demand that future Ukrainian governments respect minority rights, especially regarding the status of Russian as an official language. In short, Ukraine should remain neutral between East and West.


Some might say these policy prescriptions amount to a defeat for America. On the contrary, Washington has a deep-seated interest in ending this conflict and maintaining Ukraine as a sovereign buffer state between Russia and NATO. Furthermore, good relations with Russia are essential, because the United States needs Moscow’s help to deal with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and eventually to help counter China, the only genuine potential rival to the United States. [與俄羅斯維持良好的關係，是十分重要的，因為美國需要莫斯科的支持，來處理伊朗、敘利亞、阿富汗，且最終要幫助美國來反制中國，中國才是唯一真正美國的潛在威脅。]


(John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” )

當我們台灣人與台美人讀到Prof. Mearsheimer說美國應設法讓莫斯科「幫助美國，來反制中國，中國才是唯一真正美國的潛在威脅」我們不能不感到高興，也不能不表示感謝。不過，Prof. Mearsheimer論政還是有其極限與盲點，因為美國的外交政策通常帶有現實主義與理想主義兩個元素，美國不可能不favor與保護(即便不是軍事保護)親西方與民主的新烏克蘭[政權] 。

(待續)

台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)