反向尼克森。豪爾赫·席爾瓦/Pool/AFP 透過蓋蒂圖片社。
北京中國歐洲俄羅斯烏克蘭弗拉基米爾·普丁戰爭習近平
愛德華·盧特韋克
2025 年 3 月 4 日 4 分鐘
當全世界為澤連斯基和川普之間電視拳擊比賽的場面而震驚時，在萬斯的慫恿下，我們很可能會忽視這場對抗揭示了川普的優先事項。儘管在整個有失體面的事件中白宮並沒有明確點名，但白宮最近主要關注的是中國而不是俄羅斯，這也解釋了為什麼白宮拒絕讓一切服從烏克蘭的需求和野心。
最早的跡像出現在2017年，也就是川普一號執政期間，當時美國首次對中國的技術經濟崛起採取直接行動。看到中國威脅日益增大，美國政府切斷了中國真正需要的一些先進技術的獲取管道，首先是先進的微處理器，也就是導彈和智慧型手機的「晶片」。值得注意的是，這是拜登沒有扭轉的一項川普政策。事實上，他的政府試圖加強技術出口管制。
如今，隨著川普二號政策的啟動，美國正在應對一個明顯更具侵略性的中國。顯然，習近平的「中國夢」不是要建立一個更富裕或快樂的國家，而是要建立一個更強大、更戰鬥的國家。他多次視察解放軍各總部，敦促全體官兵做好戰鬥準備，真正打仗、打勝仗！此外，據脫北者稱，習近平已告訴中央軍委成員準備在 2027 年前入侵台灣。
此作者的更多作品
中央情報局的崩潰
作者：愛德華·盧特韋克
因此，雖然澤連斯基在白宮受辱的直接原因是軟化俄羅斯、迅速達成停火併開始就領土妥協進行談判，但這一切都是為了實現川普更大、更長遠的野心，即消滅中國。在這一方面，川普正在實現「反向尼克森」：川普不像1972年基辛格和尼克森那樣拉攏中國反對蘇聯，而是希望將莫斯科與北京分開。
當然，今天的俄羅斯只不過是尼克森所面對的那個依然強大的蘇聯的影子。但即便俄羅斯實力已大不如前，它仍對中國實力起了很大的增強作用。它提供一切產品，從習近平戰鬥機的噴射發動機（其自己的發動機仍然頑固地不可靠），到通過俄羅斯北極港口進入極地，通過哈薩克斯坦和莫斯科進入西歐的鐵路，以及進入伊朗和中東的陸路通道。
更簡單的是，俄羅斯的遼闊領土位於中國和「西方」（包括歐洲和北美）之間，在戰爭中，其角色就像太平洋為美國服務一樣，從聖地牙哥和珍珠港到台灣和中國。
“隨著川普二號政策的啟動，美國正在應對一個明顯更具侵略性的中國。”
與拜登相比，川普更適合與普丁討價還價——首先，他從未像拜登那樣侮辱普丁。但這並不是川普有很大機會成功完成這項外交舉措的主要原因。如今，
- 普丁越來越擔心的問題之一是俄羅斯濱海省、西伯利亞最東部的領土完整。
早在我 2019 年訪問符拉迪沃斯托克時，
當地官員和學者就對中國的入侵表示了嚴重擔憂——
在烏克蘭戰爭導致中國相對實力急劇上升之前。自此以後，事情變得越來越令人擔憂。
從根本上來說，這個問題是人口問題。
- 東西伯利亞——正式名稱為「遠東聯邦區」——
比澳洲略小，比歐盟大得多，是印度的兩倍，但最新統計顯示人口僅 810 萬。同時，中國最北端的大城市哈爾濱市的人口就有1000多萬，黑龍江省的人口有3000萬，內蒙古的人口有2400萬。
隨著在這條漫長而又很少有人巡邏的邊境上，中國軍隊的數量日益超過俄羅斯軍隊，那裡發生的一些變化也讓莫斯科感到警惕。一個小例子卻訴說著一個重要的故事。 2023年，中國政府突然頒布法令，規定使用前俄羅斯名稱「海神崴」來稱呼符拉迪沃斯托克，以取代先前的「符拉迪沃斯托克」——這顯然是對該俄羅斯名稱的中文發音的一種溫和嘗試。
這種看似無害的語言調整掩蓋了深深的歷史怨恨。中國人仍然懷著無比痛苦的心情回憶著19世紀皇權的崩潰，以及隨之而來的根據「不平等條約」而遭受的領土損失，以及向英國、法國、日本、奧匈帝國、德國（在青島仍生產優質德國啤酒）甚至意大利（在天津）做出的被迫讓步。
建議閱讀
基爾·斯塔默愚蠢的對華戰略
伊麗莎白·林德利
隨著時間的推移，大部分領土損失都被收回，包括1997年回歸中國的香港，但最大的領土損失卻並非如此，這些領土損失是沙皇俄國在1858年和1860年強行奪取的。它們現在構成了西伯利亞的一部分和俄羅斯遠東的濱海省，包括符拉迪沃斯托克。儘管時光流逝，但許多中國人民仍然對失去的領土和過去的屈辱記憶猶新。我們不要忘記俄羅斯為什麼要入侵烏克蘭。
而最近，又出現了另一個警告，中國非常低調但意義重大地要求在俄羅斯濱海省斯拉維亞灣建設一個現代化的貨櫃港口，該海灣位於符拉迪沃斯托克以南，中國領土與太平洋的距離在11英里以內。中國建造這個港口當然有非常充分的理由：整個東北地區，即「銹帶」東北地區，的經濟長期以來因遠離海港而受到影響。隨著那裡經濟的轉型，中國的威脅也隨之增加。
因此，希望烏克蘭戰爭以雙方都同意的、不由任何一方強加的領土解決方案順利結束，這無疑符合西方國家的關鍵利益。同樣，至關重要的是，俄羅斯不應像現在這樣依賴中國。歐洲在這方面可能陷入了困境，但川普似乎已經發現了這個機會，他意識到普丁在烏克蘭問題上追求有利結果的過程中，蘊藏著一個讓他與北京疏遠的機會。雖然這看起來有些牽強，但即使對於這位最難預測的總統來說，澤連斯基在電視上受到的羞辱似乎確實表明了尼克森的意圖。
愛德華·勒特瓦克教授是一位戰略家和歷史學家，以其在大戰略、地緣經濟學、軍事史和國際關係方面的著作而聞名。
埃勒特瓦克
喜歡你正在閱讀的內容嗎？
以下是我們認為您可能會喜歡的一些 UnHerd 文章
色情如何吞噬一切
誰在阻止烏克蘭的和平？
中美在烏克蘭問題上達成共識
參與討論
加入志同道合的讀者，成為付費訂閱者，支持我們的新聞事業
訂閱評論
56 則評論
最多投票
塞繆爾·羅斯
1 個月前
存在著贏得戰鬥和輸掉戰爭的概念。所以，當俄羅斯攻擊烏克蘭時，它自己可能會遭到更強大國家的攻擊。確實如此…
0
0
卡倫·阿諾德
1 個月前
回复 Samuel Ross
中國或許能夠意識到，如果俄羅斯在烏克蘭問題上變得虛弱，當俄羅斯不再有用時，他們將更容易被戰勝。
0
0
蘭開夏郡小伙子
1 個月前
當俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭後發現自己被孤立時，它非常樂意接受中國（以及透過中國，北韓）的援助，以維持軍隊數量和市場准入。我不知道普丁是否真的認為習近平伸出了“友誼之手”，但這更有可能是一種戰略策略。
我想普丁也會以同樣的方式看待來自白宮的噪音。川普為結束烏克蘭衝突的舉措，以及對澤連斯基試圖阻止衝突的批評，都引發了克里姆林宮的積極回應，但這只是同一場遊戲的一部分：美國和中國相互競爭，試圖將俄羅斯排除在外。
可悲的是，歐洲隊甚至沒有參加比賽，儘管他們在邊線上拼命地跳上跳下，試圖表現出好像在需要的時候可以上場的樣子；替補隊員甚至不適合比賽，而且不懂規則。
0
0
大衛麥基
1 個月前
回覆 Lancashire Lad
這不起作用。尼克森訪華時，毛澤東已與蘇聯斷絕關係。普丁和習近平是盟友。他們會讓川普受騙。
0
0
羅登尼多族
1 個月前
回覆 David McKee
俄羅斯並不是中國的天然盟友。他們把中國視為寶貝，願意把握機會解決烏克蘭問題，抹去與西方的仇恨
0
0
大衛麥基
1 個月前
回覆 Ethniciodo Rodenydo
並不存在所謂的“天然盟友”，或“天敵”。希特勒認為英國不是德國的天敵，但邱吉爾卻不這麼認為。
抹去與西方的仇恨？歐巴馬不是試圖與普丁重啟關係嗎？看看他取得了多大的成就。
0
0
羅登尼多族
1 個月前
回覆 David McKee
有天然的盟友和非天然的盟友。例如英國和法國。
不，歐巴馬沒有
0
0
大衛麥基
1 個月前
回覆 Ethniciodo Rodenydo
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/us-Russia-relations-reset-fact-sheet
0
0
史蒂夫喬利
1 個月前
回覆 Ethniciodo Rodenydo
他確實聲稱這樣做了，但這更像是向觀眾展示“我們嘗試過的樣子”，而不是其他什麼。事實上，這並沒有反映出美國政策的任何重大變化，也沒有反映出對俄羅斯關注領域的任何承認。這與我們現在看到的情況完全不同，川普表明他願意將美國利益與歐洲利益分開。普丁可能認為歐盟是大多數衝突的根源，而美國只是支持歐盟的利益。因此，在沒有他們參與的情況下進行談判是一個強烈的信號，表明川普可能願意直接解決俄羅斯的擔憂，而不是透過歐盟和北約。他希望美國停止支持歐洲，而川普希望俄羅斯停止支持中國。要得到一些東西，就必須回饋一些東西，而川普顯然對整個歐洲聯盟的價值表示質疑。
0
0
史蒂夫喬利
1 個月前
回覆 David McKee
有天然的盟友和敵人。俄羅斯和中國是天然的經濟盟友，因為中國擁有龐大的工業製造基礎，但資源相對貧乏，而俄羅斯資源豐富，其經濟在某種程度上一直依賴出口這些資源。已經有許多書籍詳細記述了俄羅斯為促進貿易而尋求溫水港的歷史歷程。這些事情可能是暫時的，也可能是長期的。各國都具有某些地理特性，這在某種程度上決定了它們的利益。由於英國是一個島國，因此它先成為一個貿易國，然後成為一個帝國。因此，它長期以來被視為俄羅斯的天然盟友。它對歐洲大陸的領土不感興趣，但總是能從與俄羅斯的貿易中受益。
當國家之間因土地和資源而長期存在爭端時，往往會出現自然的競爭對手。俄羅斯和中國在東亞存在領土競爭。法國和德國之間的某些地區曾經是、並且從理論上講仍然可能成為爭論點。俄羅斯長期以來與奧斯曼帝國一直是競爭對手，爭奪東歐和中亞的影響力和權力。
所有這些都可能暫時或永久地改變。俄羅斯和英國不再被視為天然的盟友，法國和德國也不再被視為天然的敵人。科技可以改變這些事情，而自然趨勢可以被政治權宜之計所克服。俄羅斯和中國是否會因經濟因素而成為長期的自然聯盟，還是兩國傳統的領土競爭成為更大因素，還有待觀察。他們要麼為了獲取經濟利益和反抗「西方」而解決爭端，要麼他們的領土爭端可能因城市名稱等瑣碎事情而重新燃起。
美國是一個有點難以預測的國家，因為它曾經像俄羅斯一樣是資源出口國，後來又成為製造業強國，並在其歷史的不同時期和不同程度上成為貿易帝國。很少會出現完全相反的情況，但從政治考慮來看，通常其中一種會占主導地位。美國在國內生產大多數必需品的能力上仍然較為靈活，並且是少數幾個能夠合法地與世界其他國家隔絕並生存下來的國家之一。其他國家只有俄羅斯、加拿大，或許還有澳洲。因此，美國很容易就能轉移其聯盟，而不會產生長期的經濟後果。如果願意的話，美國可以完全出於政治原因與俄羅斯和解。中美兩國現在和歷史上都不是天然的盟友，也都不是對手。它們曾是世界兩端的兩個巨人，曾因歐洲問題發生過短暫的衝突，但這場衝突在1991年基本結束。此後的爭端主要圍繞著歐盟展開，歐盟一直是推動北約和歐盟東擴的主導力量。由於俄羅斯與中國的關係可能基於自然的協同作用和傳統爭端而朝任何一個方向發展，因此美國傾向於後一種結果是有道理的，因為我們的主要競爭對手是中國。如果美國能夠採取政治行動，使俄羅斯和中國成為競爭對手而不是盟友，那麼它將受益匪淺，而且除了激怒歐洲人之外，幾乎沒有什麼損失，而川普已經透過許多其他方式激怒了歐洲人。
對當前動態的一種解讀是，美國和歐洲並不是天然的盟友，在沒有共同敵人的情況下，這一點變得越來越明顯。再說一次，美國與俄羅斯沒有直接爭端。冷戰是意識形態的，以歐洲為中心。那場戰爭早已結束，歐洲現在不再那麼重要了。如果沒有歐洲的影響，俄羅斯和美國之間實際上不會在烏克蘭問題上發生任何衝突；如果沒有歐洲聯盟的影響，烏克蘭問題可能也不會成為爭端，而歐洲聯盟的價值目前正受到嚴重質疑。如果我們解決了烏克蘭問題，這將成為與俄羅斯實現更正常化雙邊關係的門戶，並表明兩國之間沒有直接懸而未決的爭端。這項重心轉移或許不是轉向俄羅斯，而是遠離歐洲，而俄羅斯人對此可能確實持正面態度，因為如果沒有美國在軍事上支持他們的利益，歐洲的強度將大大降低。
0
0
史蒂夫喬利
1 個月前
回覆 Lancashire Lad
是的，歐洲人正在面對歐盟對美國的戰略價值有限的現實。跨大西洋聯盟建立在20世紀的衝突、世界大戰和冷戰的基礎上。這些衝突已經結束並解決，現在有新的衝突和新的利益需要優先考慮。美國的戰略重點是亞洲，因為我們在該地區任何一個主要盟友的戰略重要性都比整個歐洲更大，面臨的威脅也更大。川普的政策是直率的、不加掩飾的、現實主義的。他從原始實力、利益和戰略現實的角度看待一切事物。他不欣賞歷史，我懷疑他對歷史也知之甚少。跨大西洋聯盟的歷史對川普來說並不重要，因為該聯盟對現在的美國來說是一個負擔。歷史友誼對拜登這個早期時代形成的老頭子很有吸引力，但對像川普這樣的人卻毫無吸引力，儘管兩人年齡相仿，但心思總是放在當下，放眼未來。
0
0
奇波科
26天前
回覆 Steve Jolly
我們不應忽視這樣一個事實，即川普的母親出生於蘇格蘭，因此他與英國有著強烈的家庭和情感聯繫。這一事實本身就使川普有資格獲得英國公民身分！正如最近發生的事件所表明的那樣，第二次世界大戰的關係可能已經走到了盡頭。然而，整個美國法律體係以及其政治治理、機構和公民管理的理念和定位基本上都是英國的。即使兩國關係在二十世紀的基礎上改變，這種牢固的紐帶仍將長期存在。我認為川普正確地制止了英國和歐洲幾十年來一直依賴美國的慷慨來為他們提供軍事支持（加拿大也是如此）的自滿情緒。這樣的清算早就該進行了——儘管沒有人會說這令人意外，因為川普在第一任期內就對此大聲疾呼。
希望能夠出現一種政治上更健康、更平衡的關係，儘管我懷疑歐盟是否有足夠的凝聚力來承擔川普賦予它的責任重擔。有沒有可能，歐盟各國作為個體實體，集體的力量會比現在這個龐大的、社會主義的、腐敗的龐然大物更強大？
0
0
奇波科
24天前
回覆 Chipoko 的帖子
…家庭與情感紐帶！
0
0
吉姆‧維恩巴斯
1 個月前
很棒的東西。這是我讀到的第二份此類報告——有關俄羅斯和中國之間真正潛在的緊張局勢。
0
0
麥可·卡扎利
1 個月前
勒特韋克重回嚴肅的地緣政治評論員職位。
新保守主義試圖摧毀俄羅斯，但結果卻把俄羅斯推入了中國的“懷抱”，這是一個巨大的錯誤。當然，糾正可能已經太晚了。
0
0
查爾斯·斯坦霍普
1 個月前
因此，中國想要歸還俄羅斯在十九世紀中葉「竊取」的665,000平方英里的土地。
這並沒有什麼不合理或特別不尋常的地方。如果可以的話，普丁先生將不得不「做好驅逐邊界的準備」！
0
0
比利鮑伯
1 個月前
回覆 CHARLES STANHOPE
最近在烏克蘭和喬治亞的經歷讓他實在沒什麼好抱怨的。
我希望中國徹底打敗他們
0
0
吉姆·哈格蒂
1 個月前
回覆 Billy Bob
兩個核子大國激烈衝突…核輻射能傳播多遠？
0
0
查爾斯·斯坦霍普
1 個月前
回覆 Jim Haggerty
顯然沒有紐西蘭那麼遠。
0
0
蘭開夏郡小伙子
1 個月前
回覆 CHARLES STANHOPE
「登船者」——就像古代海戰時那樣，船隻聚集在一起，好鬥的水手從一側「登上」另一側，將其俘虜。
0
0
查爾斯·斯坦霍普
1 個月前
回覆 Lancashire Lad
我對於自己的邋遢感到很抱歉。
0
0
拉斯穆斯·福格
1 個月前
因此，希望烏克蘭戰爭以雙方都同意的、不由任何一方強加的領土解決方案順利結束，這無疑符合西方國家的關鍵利益。
我完全同意，但在這種情況下，川普如此努力地在烏克蘭實施親普丁的解決方案是適得其反的。
正如偉大的現實主義者盧特瓦克肯定會同意的那樣，普丁將繼續追求自己的利益，直到被迫停止。他的興趣在於控制烏克蘭和東歐大部分地區。川普正在做什麼可能會阻止他？
0
0
吉姆·哈格蒂
1 個月前
回覆 Rasmus Fogh
歐洲人正在做什麼來阻止他？不再是我們的問題了……歐盟的經濟和人口都比俄羅斯大得多……你們自己照顧吧
“當然，今天的俄羅斯只不過是尼克森所面對的那個仍然充滿活力的蘇聯的一個影子”
0
0
羅登尼多族
1 個月前
回覆 Rasmus Fogh
您又來到 Kool Aid 了。
沒有證據顯示普丁對控制東歐大部分地區有任何興趣。
這是戰爭販子為繼續烏克蘭戰爭辯護的妖魔化
0
0
AJ麥克
1 個月前
回覆 Ethniciodo Rodenydo
除非嘗試，或甚至完成，否則永遠不會有決定性的證據。普丁或他的歷史有什麼特點讓你相信，他會滿足於僅僅為了面子而割讓烏克蘭的部分領土？
0
0
沃倫樹
1 個月前
回覆 AJ Mac
其餘人不是俄羅斯族，也不會說俄語。這就是證據。
0
0
史蒂夫喬利
1 個月前
回覆 AJ Mac
您對普丁的看法可能是對的。沒有人知道他的野心會達到多大。除了普丁本人，世界上可能沒有人知道。獨裁統治的危害之一是，一個足夠不穩定的個體可能造成重大破壞。我們無法說出普丁真正想要什麼、打算什麼，也無法說出他的野心到底有多大，但烏克蘭衝突讓我們對俄羅斯的軍事實力有了寶貴的了解。如果他的軍隊無法支持他的野心，那麼他的野心就毫無意義，事實上俄羅斯軍隊與烏克蘭陷入了僵局，而烏克蘭並不被認為是大國。儘管歐盟的軍事能力已經衰弱，但我無法想像它會比烏克蘭更容易被攻擊，我也無法想像美國會袖手旁觀，讓普丁進軍波蘭（如果他真的認為可以的話）。
0
0
AJ麥克
30天前
回覆 Steve Jolly
從我們已知的或我們認為我們做的事情來看，這是有道理的。請注意，我並沒有說我知道普丁會有持續的擴張主義傾向。世界迅速陷入高度不確定性，很難知道我們將走向何方，但這個方向可能預示著中國在不久的將來在全球發揮更大的作用。
0
0
史蒂文·卡爾
1 個月前
回覆 Rasmus Fogh
俄羅斯控制著亞洲70%的地區。
0
0
克里斯·懷布羅
1 個月前
普丁為什麼會接受與美國的友好關係只有四年期限？川普只剩下一屆任期，我看不出他的繼任者會試圖與俄羅斯保持友好關係。
0
0
吉姆·哈格蒂
1 個月前
回覆 Chris Whybrow
一切都取決於中國局勢如何發展......他的繼任者可能需要他們，就像我們需要中國對抗蘇聯一樣。如果你還記得的話，2009 年希拉蕊·柯林頓向拉夫羅夫遞交了紅色重置按鈕…
0
0
羅登尼多族
1 個月前
回覆 Chris Whybrow
如果真正的威脅是中國，我可以
0
0
麥可哈里斯
1 個月前
回覆 Chris Whybrow
他的繼任者可能是 JD Vance，因為他選擇了 JD Vance 來延續政策。
0
0
薩米爾·伊克爾
1 個月前
「在這一點上，他正在實現『反向尼克森』：川普不像 1972 年基辛格和尼克森那樣拉攏中國來反對蘇聯，而是希望將莫斯科與北京分開。」
有人明白了。
0
0
羅登尼多族
1 個月前
回覆 Samir Iker
這正是計劃。如果我是川普，那將是我的首要任務。這是為了避免另一場世界大戰
0
0
Dougie Undersub
1 個月前
回覆 Samir Iker
這是一個巧妙的理論，而且根據文章中提出的理由，俄羅斯在這種關係中絕對是次要的夥伴。然而，近期川普有何籌碼可以阻止普丁像過去那樣一再破壞停火？
讓俄羅斯脫離中國對於保護台灣毫無作用。
0
0
里克·弗雷澤
1 個月前
回覆 Samir Iker
基辛格只是知道，如果三個強國中的任何兩個決定聯手對抗第三個強國，那麼第三個強國就會有大麻煩。川普也面臨同樣的問題。所以問題變成了我們試圖將哪個國家更多地納入我們的軌道。人們可能認為我們在經濟上對中國佔有優勢。但如果作者關於俄羅斯對中國明顯感到不安的說法是正確的，那麼俄羅斯也許是更好的選擇。
0
0
以前的訂戶
1 個月前
「我們不要忘記俄羅斯為什麼入侵烏克蘭。」
這其中有歷史原因，但美國的干預才是導致事態發展的關鍵。
如果普丁的目標只是最大限度地擴張俄羅斯領土，那為什麼他沒有入侵白俄羅斯？
普丁喜歡在俄羅斯的勢力範圍內設立「緩衝國」。
0
0
吉姆·哈格蒂
1 個月前
回覆 以前的訂閱者
他為什麼要入侵白俄羅斯？它是一個附庸國，有俄羅斯的軍隊和核武…
0
0
史蒂文·卡爾
1 個月前
回覆 Jim Haggerty
烏克蘭可能成為第二個白俄羅斯。
0
0
以前的訂戶
1 個月前
回覆 Jim Haggerty
的確。
只要烏克蘭仍處於俄羅斯的影響之下，就沒有必要入侵它。正如美國迄今認為沒有必要入侵加拿大、墨西哥或英國。
當維多利亞·紐蘭及其朋友開始鼓勵烏克蘭民族主義者斷絕與俄羅斯的聯繫時，麻煩不可避免地會出現。
0
0
亞歷克斯·萊卡斯
1 個月前
回覆 以前的訂閱者
知道這個背景故事或選擇忽略它的人的數量相當多。
0
0
Dougie Undersub
1 個月前
回覆 以前的訂閱者
這就是為什麼美國應該為自己造成的混亂承擔責任，而不是袖手旁觀。
0
0
卡倫·阿諾德
1 個月前
所以普丁想把俄羅斯領土重置到20世紀初，而習近平想把中國領土重置到真正的19世紀。俄羅斯和中國目前可能是盟友，但能維持多久？這篇文章更清楚地解釋了川普為什麼會這麼做，儘管他看起來仍然像一個不值得信任的惡霸。他現在也許能夠強力壓制烏克蘭（和歐洲），但在未來的戰鬥中，他將不得不考慮誰可能是他的盟友，而不是現在削弱他們，而是採取短視的行動。
0
0
伯納德·布羅斯曼
1 個月前
非常有趣。愛德華是不是說，我們應該縱容或默許俄羅斯接管烏克蘭東部，並希望普丁能夠心甘情願地與中國分道揚鑣？
我認為我們陷入這種困境是因為拜登政府在向烏克蘭提供武器方面存在拖延和限制，烏克蘭的談判地位處於弱勢。
0
0
亞歷克斯·萊卡斯
1 個月前
告訴那些想要冷戰回歸的人。
0
0
傑·沃森
1 個月前
從策略論點來看，這確實有點『誇大其詞』。習近平尚未對俄羅斯現有領土做出與台灣類似的聲明。獨裁者最擔心且無法容忍的是毗鄰而立的充滿活力的自由經濟體。鄰近的腐朽專制政權不構成威脅──這就是普丁不干涉盧卡申科的原因。
習近平和普丁都因西方的威脅及其價值觀而結盟。川普和其他戰略家需要醒悟過來，認識到遏制的必要性。試圖找到一個住處，他們會接受軟弱的表現。
0
0
丹尼斯·羅伯茨
1 個月前
回覆 j watson
獨裁者不喜歡自己身邊有自由的民眾，但事情不只如此。
如果你認為中國是川普的主要擔憂，那麼他的許多近期舉動都是有道理的——
迫使烏克蘭迅速達成協議，以便美國能夠盡快轉向中國。
拒絕向烏克蘭提供安全保障，迫使歐洲國家在國防上投入更多資金來遏制俄羅斯，這也將使他們在即將到來的與中國的鬥爭中發揮更大作用。
再次向加拿大、格陵蘭和烏克蘭施壓，要求它們提供礦產資源和/或進入北極的權利。中國控制著超過90％的多種重要礦產，而美國卻控制著很少的礦產。
與俄羅斯建立更好的關係，以便他們也可以從俄羅斯獲得資源（無論是俄羅斯本土還是被佔領的烏克蘭）。
而且，正如本文所建議的，與中國的主要盟友保持良好關係，以試圖破壞他們之間的關係。
0
0
麥克·弗林
1 個月前
回覆 j watson
您已經確定了遏制目標和風險；尤其是獨裁者為了一寸不差地要一寸光陰的傾向。如果能夠實現將兩個國家分開，就是一種遏制。
0
0
UnHerd 閱讀器
1 個月前
你不能兩全其美——如果歐洲像支持讓美國再次偉大（MAGA）的評論員所說的那樣軟弱（他們很可能是對的），那麼川普透過拋棄聯盟所做的一切就是迫使他們與中國同盟，而與俄羅斯相比，中國的威脅要小得多，地理位置也更接近中國。如果美國退出舞台（或者也許應該這麼說？），那麼就會給中共留下一個真空。
0
0
麥克·弗林
1 個月前
回覆 UnHerd 讀者
有可能中國轉向歐洲。回想一下，更直接的情況是，德國尤其對俄羅斯採取了輪流態度。東方政策？因為戰爭不是一種選擇，所以這是屈服於俄羅斯影響的一種方式。
0
0
史蒂夫喬利
1 個月前
事實上，我以前曾認為川普對莫斯科的提議是尼克森對華戰略的一種逆轉，並且可能對此發表過評論。勒特瓦克在這裡所說的一切都是基本的地緣政治戰略。美國的戰略重點是亞洲。這一點自歐巴馬政府時期甚至更早就已經很明顯了。利用中國盟友對侵略的恐懼來瓦解他們的盟友是明智之舉。即使美國有自己的戰略利益、要求和領土野心，這些要求、利益和野心也會與某些國家發生衝突，但不會與所有國家發生衝突。儘管跨大西洋聯盟的歷史悠久，但從美國的角度來看，它已經變得相當片面，儘管歐洲的戰略重要性急劇下降。如果美國能夠透過將烏克蘭推到談判桌上來與俄羅斯達成某種程度的和解，那麼它可能會利用東部的領土爭端作為裂痕，以尼克森幾十年前所認識到的同樣的方式，將兩國分開，只不過是站在談判桌的另一邊。目前的事件使我對尼克森的政治和戰略敏銳性有了更深刻的認識。他的策略在今天仍舊有迴響。從放棄金本位制來糾正貿易逆差的最初跡象，到他為建立共和黨基礎而採取的南方戰略，再到他的中國戰略，尼克森表現出對國內和全球政治戰略的非凡理解。他的長期影響力幾乎比戰後任何其他美國政治家都要大，但人們記住他的卻是一次拙劣的政治犯罪，而這起犯罪可能並不比其他任職較低職位或沒有被抓住的人犯下的政治罪行更嚴重。
0
0
里克·弗雷澤
1 個月前
回覆 Steve Jolly
如果尼克森沒有實施商業史上從未奏效過的價格管制，他肯定也會表現得更好。但總體來說，我同意你的評估。
0
0
休·卡佩奇
1 個月前
布熱津斯基認為，沒有烏克蘭，俄羅斯就會變成一個民主國家，而不是一個帝國。但事實上，沒有烏克蘭，俄羅斯就會變成一個附庸國。
0
0
克里斯多福·錢特里爾
30天前
這才像樣子。
問題是，中國人想要的是否不僅僅是東西伯利亞和台灣。
專家們，您覺得怎麼樣？
0
0
彼得蓋伊
20天前
這篇文章的諷刺之處之一在於，它清楚地說明了為什麼川普無法成功地將俄羅斯從中國拉開到必要的距離。從地理位置來看，中俄兩國距離太近，對俄羅斯來說，除了盡可能與中國保持密切聯繫外，他們別無選擇。
Trump’s reverse-Nixon manoeuvre He's prising Putin from Beijing
A reverse Nixon. Jorge Silva/Pool/AFP via Getty Images.
BeijingChinaEuropeRussiaUkraineVladimir PutinWarXi Jinping
Edward Luttwak
March 4, 2025 4 mins
As the world reels from the scenes of the televised boxing match between Zelensky and Trump, with Vance egging the fight on, we are in danger of losing sight of what the encounter reveals about Trump’s priorities. Though it was not explicitly named during the entire undignified episode, it is China and not Russia that is the White House’s main concern these days, and that explains the refusal to subordinate everything to Ukraine’s needs and ambitions.
The first signs emerged back in 2017, during the years of Trump One, when the US for the first time acted very directly against China’s techno-economic rise. Seeing its increasing threat, the Administration cut off access to some of the advanced technology that China really needs, starting with advanced microprocessors, the “chips” of both missiles and smartphones. Tellingly, this was the one Trump policy that Biden did not reverse. Indeed, his Administration tried to strengthen the technology export controls.
Now, as Trump Two kicks off, America is dealing with a distinctly more aggressive China. It has become clear that Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” is not about a richer or a happier nation, but rather a stronger and indeed more warlike one. He has been visiting the different headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army to urge the assembled officers to be ready to fight — to really fight, and win! Further, it seems that defectors have reported that Xi has told members of the Central Military Commission to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027.
More from this author
The breakdown of the CIA
By Edward Luttwak
So while the immediate rationale behind the humiliation of Zelensky in the White House would have been to soften-up Russia and obtain a prompt ceasefire, and start negotiations for a territorial compromise, it was all done in the service of Trump’s larger and longer term ambition of neutralising China. In this, he is pulling off a “reverse Nixon”: instead of courting China to oppose the USSR, as Kissinger and Nixon did in 1972, Trump wants to detach Moscow from Beijing.
Of course, today’s Russia is but a shadow of the still vigorous USSR that Nixon had to contend with. But even in its much-weakened state, Russia still adds a great deal to Chinese power. It provides everything from jet engines for Xi’s fighters (its own remain stubbornly unreliable), to Polar access via Russia’s arctic ports, railway access to Western Europe via Kazakhstan and Moscow, and overland access to Iran and the Middle East.
More simply, Russia’s immense territory interposed between China and the “West”, both in Europe and North America, would function in war as the Pacific Ocean serves the US, from San Diego and Pearl Harbor to Taiwan and China.
“As Trump Two kicks off, America is dealing with a distinctly more aggressive China.”
Trump is much better placed to bargain with Putin than Biden ever was — for one thing, he never insulted Putin as Biden did. But that is not the main reason why Trump has a decent chance of pulling off this diplomatic manoeuvre. These days, one of Putin’s growing worries is the territorial integrity of easternmost Siberia, Russia’s Maritime Province.
Local officials and academics in Vladivostok voiced acute concerns about Chinese intrusions even during my last visit in 2019 — before the sharp increase in China’s relative power caused by the Ukraine war. Since then, things have only grown more concerning.
Ultimately, the problem is demographic. Eastern Siberia — officially the “Far Eastern Federal District” — is a tad smaller than Australia, much bigger than the European Union and twice the size of India, but only had a population of 8.1 million at the last count. Meanwhile, China’s northernmost big city Harbin has more than 10 million inhabitants all by itself, while its Heilongjiang province has 30 million, and Inner Mongolia another 24 million.
As the Chinese increasingly outnumber Russians along that immensely long and scarcely patrolled border, there are other shifts there to alarm Moscow. One small example tells a significant tale. In 2023, the Chinese government abruptly issued an ordinance that mandates the use of the pre-Russian name “Haishenwai” for Vladivostok, in place of the previous “Fúlādíwòsītuōkè” — which was clearly a meek attempt at a Chinese pronunciation of the Russian name.
This seemingly innocuous linguistic tweak belies a deep historical resentment. The Chinese still remember with great bitterness the collapse of imperial power in the 19th century, and the ensuing territorial losses under “unequal treaties” and forced concessions to the British, French, Japanese, Austro-Hungary, Germany (in Qingdao where good German beer is still made), and even Italy, in Tianjin.
Suggested reading
Keir Starmer's foolish China strategy
By Elizabeth Lindley
Over time, most of those territorial losses were revoked, including Hong Kong that reverted to China in 1997, but not the biggest territorial losses by far, which were extorted by Imperial Russia in 1858 and 1860. They now constitute a slice of Siberia and Russia’s Maritime Province in the Far East, including Vladivostok. In spite of the passage of time, many in China still remember the lost territories and the old humiliations only too keenly. Let’s not forget why the Russians invaded Ukraine.
Then, more recently, another warning appeared, with China’s very quiet but momentous request to build a modern container port in the bay of Slavianska, in Russia’s Maritime Province south of Vladivostok, where Chinese territory arrives within 11 miles of the Pacific Ocean. The Chinese certainly have a very good reason to build the port: the economy of the entire its north-east, the “rust belt” Dongbei, has long suffered from its distance from a seaport. As the economy there is transformed, so the Chinese threat increases.
So, yes, it is certainly a key Western interest that the war in Ukraine ends advantageously, with an agreed territorial settlement not imposed by either side. Equally, it is vitally important that Russia should not be as dependent on China as it now is. Europe may have its head stuck in the sand in this regard, but it seems that Trump has spotted this opportunity, realising that in Putin’s pursuit of a favourable outcome in Ukraine there is an opportunity to detach him from Beijing. While it might seem far-fetched, even for this most unpredictable of presidents, the televised humiliation of Zelensky did seem to indicate that Nixonian intent.
Professor Edward Luttwak is a strategist and historian known for his works on grand strategy, geoeconomics, military history, and international relations.
ELuttwak
Like what you’re reading?
Here are some more UnHerd articles we think you might enjoy
How porn swallowed everything
Who is preventing peace in Ukraine?
China and America find common ground on Ukraine
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
Subscribe to comment
56 Comments
Most Voted
Samuel Ross
1 month ago
There exists a concept of winning the battle and losing the war. So it is, for Russia as it attacks Ukraine, it may itself be attacked by a still larger power. Indeed so …..
0
0
Karen Arnold
1 month ago
Reply to Samuel Ross
Perhaps China can see that if Russia weakens itself over Ukraine they will be easier to overcome when Russia is no longer useful.
0
0
Lancashire Lad
1 month ago
When Russia found itself isolated after it’s invasion of Ukraine, it was only too happy to accept Chinese (and via China, North Korean) assistance in maintaining troop numbers and access to markets. I don’t know if Putin actually thought Xi was offering the “hand of friendship” but it’s far more likely to be a strategic ploy.
I expect Putin also sees the noises coming from the White House in the same way. Trump’s manoeuvring to end the Ukraine conflict, and taking Zelensky to task for seemingly trying to forestall it has resulted in favourable noises coming from the Kremlin, but it’s all just part of the same game: the US and China vying with each other to take the Russians out of the equation.
Sadly, the Europeans aren’t even in the game, although they’re desperately jumping up and down on the touchline to try to look as if they might be available if needed; substitutes that aren’t even match-fit, and don’t understand the rules.
0
0
David McKee
1 month ago
Reply to Lancashire Lad
It won’t work. When Nixon went to China, Mao had already broken with the Russians. Putin and Xi are allies. They’ll take Trump for a ride.
0
0
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago
Reply to David McKee
Russia is not a naturally ally of China. They recognise China as a treat and would jump at the chance to resolve Ukraine and wipe the slate with the West
0
0
David McKee
1 month ago
Reply to Ethniciodo Rodenydo
There’s no such thing as ‘natural allies’, or for that matter, ‘natural enemies’. Hitler thought Britain was not Germany’s natural enemy, but Churchill wasn’t falling for that one.
Wipe the slate with the West? Obama tried a reset with Putin, didn’t he? Look how far that got him.
0
0
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago
Reply to David McKee
There are such thing as natural and unnatural allies. Britain and France for example.
No Obama didn’t
0
0
David McKee
1 month ago
Reply to Ethniciodo Rodenydo
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/us-russia-relations-reset-fact-sheet
0
0
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to Ethniciodo Rodenydo
He did claim to do so, but it was more of a ‘look we tried’ for the viewing public than anything else. In reality it didn’t reflect any meaningful change in US policy or any recognition of Russia’s areas of concern. It was not anything like what we’re witnessing now, which is Trump signaling his willingness to separate American interests from that of Europe. Putin likely sees the EU as the source of most the conflict and the US simply as backing EU interests. Negotiating without them is thus a powerful signal that Trump may be willing to address Russian concerns directly and not through the EU and NATO. He would like to see America stop backing the Europeans and Trump would like to see Russia stop backing China. If one wants to get something, one must give something back, and Trump clearly questions the value of the European alliance in its entirety.
0
0
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to David McKee
There are natural allies and enemies. Russia and China make natural economic allies because China has a large industrial manufacturing base and is relatively resource poor, while Russia is resource rich and its economy is, and to some extent always has been, about exporting those resources. Entire books have been written about Russia’s historic quest for warm water ports to facilitate trade. These sorts of things can be temporary or long term. Nations have certain geographic properties that dictate their interests to some degree. Britain became a trading nation and then an empire because it was an island nation. It was long considered a natural ally of Russia for this reason. It had little interest in territory in continental Europe but always stood to gain from trading with Russia.
Natural rivals tend to occur when there’s a longstanding dispute between nations over land and resources. Russia and China have a territorial rivalry in east Asia. France and Germany have regions that were and theoretically could still be points of contention between them. Russia was a rival with the Ottoman Empire for a long time as they vied for influence and power in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
All this is subject to change temporarily or permanently. Russia and Britain are no longer considered natural allies, nor are France and Germany natural enemies. Technology can change these things, and the natuaral tendencies can be overcome by political expediency. Whether Russia and China becomes a long term natural alliance due to economic factors or whether their traditional rivalry over territory becomes the greater factor remains to be seen. They could either resolve their disputes in order to reap economic benefits and oppose ‘the west’, or their territorial dispute could reignite over trivial things like the names of cities.
The US is a bit of a wild card in that it has at times been an exporter or resources like Russia, a manufacturing powerhouse, and a trading empire at different points in its history and to different extents. It has very rarely been entirely one or the other, but one was usually dominant in terms of political considerations. The US remains more flexible in its ability to produce most necessities domestically, and is one of the few nations that could legitimately wall itself off from the rest of the world and survive. The only others are Russia, Canada, and perhaps Australia. As such, it’s not hard for America to shift its alliances without long term economic consequence. The US can reconcile with Russia for entirely political reasons if it wants. The two nations are neither natural allies nor rivals at present or historically. They have been two giants on opposite sides of the world who had a short term conflict over Europe which was ended for all intents and purposes in 1991. The disputes since that time are largely based on the EU, which has always been the dominant force pushing for eastward expansion of NATO and the EU. Since the Russia/China relationship could easily go either way based on both natural synergies and traditional disputes, it makes sense for the US to favor the latter outcome, as our principal rival is China. If the US can take political actions to tilt the board towards Russia and China becoming rivals rather than allies, it stands to benefit greatly, and has little to lose for the attempt, besides pissing off the Europeans, which Trump was already doing in a number of other ways.
One interpretation of the present dynamics is that the US and Europe are not natural allies and in the absence of a common foe, that’s becoming apparent. Once again, the US has no direct dispute with Russia. The Cold War was ideological and centered on Europe. That war is long since over and Europe isn’t nearly as important now. Absent the European influence, there really is no conflict between Russia and the US beyond Ukraine, which would likely not be a dispute without the influence of the European alliance, the value of which is in serious question. If we settle the matter of Ukraine, it can serve as a gateway to more normalized bilateral relations with Russia and a recognition that there is no outstanding dispute directly between the two nations. The pivot may not be towards Russia as much as away from Europe, which the Russians may indeed view favorably as Europe is far less formidable without the US backing their interests militarily.
0
0
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to Lancashire Lad
Yes, the Europeans are coming face to face with the reality that the EU has limited strategic value to the US. The transatlantic alliance was predicated upon the conflicts of the 20th century, the world wars and the Cold War. Those conflicts are over and resolved, and there are new conflicts and new interests to prioritize. The US’s strategic priority is Asia, because any of our major allies in that region are strategically more important than the whole of Europe, and are facing the more significant threat. Trump’s policy is blunt, unfiltered, realism. He sees everything in terms of raw power, interests, and strategic realities. He has no appreciation for history, and I suspect little knowledge of history. The history of the transatlantic alliance is irrelevant to Trump because the alliance is burdensome to the US in the present. Historical friendship appealed to Biden, an old man who was formed in and by and earlier era, but has no appeal to a man like Trump, whose mind is always in the present and looking to the future despite his similar age.
0
0
Chipoko
26 days ago
Reply to Steve Jolly
We should not overlook the fact that Trump has strong familiar and emotional ties with the UK given that his mother was born in Scotland. This fact in itself qualifies Trump for UK citizenship! The WW2 relationship may have run its course, as recent events suggest. However, the entire USA legal system and that of its political governance, institutions and civic administration are substantially British in their conception and orientation. These are strong bonds that will endure beyond the reshaping of the relationship from its 20th Century foundations. I think Trump is right to put a stop to the decades of complacency by UK and Europe whereby they’ve relied on American largesse to cover them militarily (ditto Canada). Such a reckoning is long overdue – though nobody can claim it comes as a surprise considering that Trump made loud noises about this during his first term in office.
Hopefully a politically healthier and more balanced relationship will emerge, though I am doubtful if the EU is sufficiently cohesive to handle the burden of responsibility that has been thrust upon it by Trump. Is it perhaps a possibility that the individual EU nations might be stronger collectively as individual entities than the monumental, socialist, corrupt behemoth that it currently is?
0
0
Chipoko
24 days ago
Reply to Chipoko
… familial and emotional ties!
0
0
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago
Great stuff. This is the second report I have read of this nature – of real potential tensions between Russia and China.
0
0
Michael Cazaly
1 month ago
Luttwak back on track as a serious geopolitical commentator.
The Neocon attempt to destroy Russia was always going to drive it into China’s “embrace” and was a huge error. Of course it may be too late to correct it.
0
0
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 month ago
So China wants back the 665,000 square miles that Russia ‘stole’ in the mid nineteenth century.
Nothing unreasonable or particularly unusual about that.Mr Putin will have to ‘prepare to repel borders’ if he can!
0
0
Billy Bob
1 month ago
Reply to CHARLES STANHOPE
He can’t really have any complaints after his recent escapades in Ukraine and Georgia.
I hope China wipe the floor with them
0
0
Jim Haggerty
1 month ago
Reply to Billy Bob
Two nuclear powers slugging it out…how far does fallout travel?
0
0
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 month ago
Reply to Jim Haggerty
Not as far as New Zealand apparently.
0
0
Lancashire Lad
1 month ago
Reply to CHARLES STANHOPE
“Boarders” – as when in naval battles of old, ships would come together and pugnacious mariners from one ‘board’ the other to take it captive.
0
0
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 month ago
Reply to Lancashire Lad
My apologies for such slovenliness.
0
0
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
So, yes, it is certainly a key Western interest that the war in Ukraine ends advantageously, with an agreed territorial settlement not imposed by either side.
I completely agree, but in that case it is rather counterproductive that Trump is working so hard to impose a pro-Putin settlement on Ukraine.
AS the great realist Luttvak wiill surely agree, Putin will continue to pursue his interests until he is forced to stop. His interests are taking control of Ukraine and large parts of Eastern Europe. What is Trump doing that might stop him?
0
0
Jim Haggerty
1 month ago
Reply to Rasmus Fogh
What are the Europeans doing to stop him?? Not our problem anymore…EU has a much bigger economy and population than Russia…take care of it yourselves
“Of course, today’s Russia is but a shadow of the still vigorous USSR that Nixon had to contend with”
0
0
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago
Reply to Rasmus Fogh
You have been at the Kool Aid again.
There is no evidence that Putin has any interest whatsoever in taking control of large parts of Eastern Europe.
It is the warmongers’ bogyman trotted out to justify continuation of the war in Ukraine
0
0
AJ Mac
1 month ago
Reply to Ethniciodo Rodenydo
There’s never dispositive evidence until it is attempted, or even accomplished. What about Putin or his history leads you to believe he will rest content with the portion of Ukraine that gets carved off for bare face-saving purposes?
0
0
Warren Trees
1 month ago
Reply to AJ Mac
The other portions are not ethnically Russian nor speak Russian. That’s the evidence.
0
0
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to AJ Mac
You’re probably right about Putin. There’s no telling how far his ambition might reach. There’s probably nobody on the planet except Putin himself that does know. Among the hazards of autocracy is the fact that one sufficiently unstable individual can create significant destruction. We can’t say what Putin really wants or intends or the full extent of his ambitions, but the Ukraine conflict has given us valuable insight as to Russia’s military capability. His ambition is meaningless if his military can’t back it up, and the fact remains the Russian military fought to a stalemate with Ukraine, which wasn’t exactly considered a great power. As decrepit as the EU’s military capabilities are, I can’t imagine it’s an easier target than Ukraine, nor can I imagine the US would actually stand aside and let Putin march into Poland if he actually thought he could.
0
0
AJ Mac
30 days ago
Reply to Steve Jolly
Makes sense from what we know, or think we do. Note that I didn’t say I knew Putin would have a persistent expansionist itch. With the world thrown so quickly into heightened uncertainty it’s hard to know where we’re headed, but this direction could prefigure a much bigger global role for China in the very near future.
0
0
Steven Carr
1 month ago
Reply to Rasmus Fogh
Russia controls 70% of Asia.
0
0
Chris Whybrow
1 month ago
Why would Putin accept friendly relations with America that have a four year expiration date? Trump only has one term left and I can’t see his successor trying to maintain a cordial relationship with Russia.
0
0
Jim Haggerty
1 month ago
Reply to Chris Whybrow
All depends how the Chinese situation is playing out..His Successor may need them like we needed the Chinese against the Soviet Union. Hillary Clinton took a red reset button to Lavrov in 2009, if you remember…
0
0
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago
Reply to Chris Whybrow
I can if the real threat is China
0
0
michael harris
1 month ago
Reply to Chris Whybrow
His successor is likely to be JD Vance whom he picked for continuity of policy.
0
0
Samir Iker
1 month ago
“In this, he is pulling off a “reverse Nixon”: instead of courting China to oppose the USSR, as Kissinger and Nixon did in 1972, Trump wants to detach Moscow from Beijing.”
Someone gets it.
0
0
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago
Reply to Samir Iker
That is exactly the plan. That would be my priority if I were Trump. It would be about avoiding another world war
0
0
Dougie Undersub
1 month ago
Reply to Samir Iker
It’s a neat theory and, for the reasons the article sets out, Russia is definitely the junior partner in that relationship. However, in the nearer term, what leverage has Trump got to stop Putin from breaking a ceasefire, just as he has repeatedly in the past?
Detaching Russia from China does nothing to protect Taiwan.
0
0
Rick Frazier
1 month ago
Reply to Samir Iker
Kissinger simply knew that if any two of three powerful countries decide to lock arms against a third powerful country, the third would be in big trouble. Trump faces the same problem. So the question becomes which country do we try to pull more into our orbit. One would think we have economic leverage on our side with China. But if the author is right about Russia’s apparent uneasiness with China, Russia might be the better choice.
0
0
Erstwhile Subscriber
1 month ago
“Let’s not forget why the Russians invaded Ukraine.”
There were historical factors, but it was American meddling that brought things to a head.
If Putin’s aim was simply to maximise Russian territory, why hasn’t he invaded Belarus?
Putin likes to have “buffer states” under Russia’s sphere of influence.
0
0
Jim Haggerty
1 month ago
Reply to Erstwhile Subscriber
Why would he invade Belarus? It is a vassal state with Russian troops and nukes there…
0
0
Steven Carr
1 month ago
Reply to Jim Haggerty
The Ukraine could become a second Belarus.
0
0
Erstwhile Subscriber
1 month ago
Reply to Jim Haggerty
Indeed.
As long as Ukraine was comfortably under Russian influence, there was no need to invade it. Just as America has so far seen no need to invade Canada, Mexico or the UK.
When Victoria Nuland and friends started encouraging Ukrainian nationalists to sever ties with Russia, trouble was inevitable.
0
0
Alex Lekas
1 month ago
Reply to Erstwhile Subscriber
The number of people who are either u aware of this back story or choose to ignore it is substantial.
0
0
Dougie Undersub
1 month ago
Reply to Erstwhile Subscriber
Which is why America should take responsibility for the mess it partially created, rather than cutting and running.
0
0
Karen Arnold
1 month ago
So Putin wants to reset Russian territory back to the early 20th century, Xi wants to reset Chinese territory back to the really 19th century. Russia and China may be allies at present but for how long? This article makes clearer why Trump acted as he did, he still looks like an untrustworthy bully though. He may be able to strong arm Ukraine (and Europe) at present, but in future battles he will have to consider who might be his allies and not weaken them now but short sighted actions.
0
0
Bernard Brothman
1 month ago
Very interesting. Is Edward saying that we should condone or acquiesce to Russia’s takeover of eastern Ukraine and hope that Putin would be placated to separate from China?
I feel we are in this predicament because of the delays and restrictions in armaments provided to Ukraine during the Biden Administration, the Ukrainians are in a weaker negotiating position.
0
0
Alex Lekas
1 month ago
Tell it to the people who want their Cold War back.
0
0
j watson
1 month ago
That’s certainly a ‘stretch’ as regards strategic arguments. Xi has made no pronouncements on current Russian territory similar to those on Taiwan. It’s having vibrant free economies adjacent that worries Autocrats the most and which they cannot abide. An adjacent decaying Autocratic regime no threat – it’s why Putin left Lukashenko alone.
Xi and Putin are bonded by the threat from the West and it’s values. Trump and other strategists need to wake up and realise containment is essential. Trying to find an accommodation a sign of weakness they’ll eat up.
0
0
Dennis Roberts
1 month ago
Reply to j watson
Autocrats don’t like having free populations near them, but there’s more than that alone going on.
Many of Trump’s recent actions make sense if you consider China as their primary concern –
Forcing Ukraine to come to terms quickly so the US can pivot to China as soon as possible.
Refusing to offer Ukraine security guarantees thereby pushing Europeans to spend more on defence to contain Russia, which will also make them more useful in the upcoming struggle with China.
Putting pressure on Canada, Greenland and Ukraine (again), for the mineral resources and/or access to the Arctic that they offer. China has control of over 90% of a number of vital minerals whilst the US has little.
Getting on better terms with Russia so that they can access resources from there also (whether from Russia proper or occupied Ukraine).
And, as this article suggests, getting on good terms with China’s major ally to try and drive a wedge between them.
0
0
mike flynn
1 month ago
Reply to j watson
You’ve identified the containment goal and the risks; especially the propensity for autocrats taking a mile when dealing for an inch. Separating the two states, if accomplished, is containment.
0
0
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
You can’t have it both ways – if Europe is as feeble as the pro-MAGA commentators make out, (and they may very well be right), then all Trump is doing by dumping the alliance is forcing them into bed with China, which is a much less immediate and geographically-proximate threat than Russia. If America exits stage left (or perhaps that should be right?), then it leaves a vacuum for the CCP.
0
0
mike flynn
1 month ago
Reply to UnHerd Reader
A China turn for Europe, possibly. Recall, more immediately, Germany, in particular, has taken turns toward Russia. Ostpolitik? As a way to submit to Russian influence since war is not an option.
0
0
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
I’ve actually thought of Trump’s overtures towards Moscow as a sort of reversal of Nixon’s China strategy before and may have commented on it. Everything Luttwak says here is basic geopolitical strategy. The US’s strategic priority is Asia. That much has been clear since the Obama administration if not even earlier. It makes sense to peel away China’s allies by exploiting their fear of aggression. Even in a world where the US has it’s own set of strategic interests, demands, and territorial ambitions, those demands, interests, and ambitions will conflict with some nations but not all nations. For all the history of the transatlantic alliance, it has become rather one sided from a US perspective, even as the strategic importance of Europe declined precipitously. If the US can somewhat reconcile with Russia by pushing the Ukrainians to the table, it may open the door to using territorial disputes in the east as a wedge to drive the two apart in exactly the same way Nixon recognized decades ago, but from the other side of the table. Current events have led to my gaining a far greater appreciation of Nixon’s political and strategic acumen. His strategies echo in the present. From his effort to correct the first signs of trade deficits by pulling the US off the gold standard, to his southern strategy to build the Republican party base, to his China strategy, Nixon showed a remarkable understanding of politics an strategy both at home and around the world. He has had more long term impact than nearly any other American politician in the postwar era, yet is remembered mostly for a botched political crime that may not be any worse than some committed by others who were in lesser offices or who just didn’t get caught.
0
0
Rick Frazier
1 month ago
Reply to Steve Jolly
Nixon certainly would have also come off looking better if he had not applied price controls which have never worked in the history of commerce. But overall, I agree with your assessment.
0
0
Hugh Cuppage
1 month ago
The problem with the Brzezinskite assumption that without Ukraine Russia becomes a democratic state not an empire is that in reality, without Ukraine Russia becomes a vassal
0
0
Christopher Chantrill
30 days ago
This is more like it.
The question is whether the Chinese want more than Eastern Siberia and Taiwan.
Whaddya think, experts?
0
0
Peter Guy
20 days ago
One of the ironies of this article is that it illustrates quite clearly just why Trump won’t succeed in pulling Russia away from China to the extent required. They are too close geographically, and there is simply too much at stake for the Russians to do anything else other than cleave to the Chinese where possible.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。