Friday, March 4, 2022

世界重回冷战?我们可能迎来一个更糟糕的时代

 文章来源: 纽约时报中文网  2022-03-04 09:06:01

保持空速、高度和航向:这是冷战期间经常遇到苏联飞机的美国飞行员挂在嘴上的话。苏联人也常常礼尚往来。上世纪80年代,在俄罗斯港口城市符拉迪沃斯托克附近的海岸,美国海军护卫舰上的直升机飞行员经常执行侦察任务,密切关注苏联舰队。美国人开始默认这样一种行为模式:通常在他们的直升机起飞后20分钟左右,苏联米格-27战斗机会迅速拉起,对美国飞机进行初步的视觉识别。两架苏联米-24“雌鹿”武装直升机——比美国直升机大——将跟在后面,与美国直升机一起飞行约两个小时。

尽管是对手,但双方的飞行员都遵守着一种隐性的行为准则,它根植于可预测的行为模式。最后,所有人都能安全回家。

随着乌克兰战争的展开,我一直在思考这一准则。乌克兰人的勇敢令我敬畏。但作为一名冷战历史学家,我担心俄罗斯的入侵,无论结果如何,都预示着一个与莫斯科之间存在巨大敌意的新时代——而且这场新冷战将比第一次更糟糕。

20世纪那场冲突的特点是避免了西方和俄罗斯直接接触,在其他国家引发代理人战争。俄罗斯总统普京的无耻让人对这次会不会这样产生怀疑。如果他不顾一切地屠杀乌克兰平民,并且不惜冒着民众叛乱的风险,他也可能不惜一切地激怒北约。

俄罗斯庞大的军事力量——以及国内的政治反对派、自由媒体和自由言论都遭到了扼杀——意味着除了军事上占下风的乌克兰人所能带来的影响之外,普京的屠杀几乎不会受到任何制约。如果他在车臣的行为(俄罗斯在90年代对该地区进行了军事攻击)可以作为借鉴,那么对乌克兰的潜在占领将是血腥和野蛮的,还会带来额外的溢出风险。

从远处观望战事发展的观察人士也不应该想当然地认为自己是安全的。除了对西方的经济后果——油价上涨、可能的滞胀——还有更糟的情况。冷战结束30年后,华盛顿和莫斯科仍然控制着世界上90%以上的核弹头,足以毁灭地球上的大多数生命。搭载这些弹头的导弹拥有巨大的速度和射程,有能力将世界变成一个非常小的地方。普京已经将其核力量置于高度戒备状态,并隐晦地威胁,如果西方干预乌克兰,将动用这些力量。

另一个问题是,我们是多么迅速地回到了冷战式的敌对状态。在从1940年代末持续到1989年左右的旧冷战期间,稳定的不接触模式有时间发展变化。这些模式并没有在21世纪完全消失;例如,在叙利亚冲突期间,西方大国为与俄罗斯消除冲突做出了大量努力。但是,当战斗对莫斯科来说更近时,一切都显然不可能了。

去年,一架俄罗斯苏-24喷气式飞机在黑海上空掠过,其间有一次飞到接近美国海军“唐纳德·库克”号驱逐舰90米的距离。上个月,俄罗斯苏-35战机在三个不同的场合接近美国P-8A侦察机。(据美国官员称,其中一架俄罗斯飞机距离一架美国飞机不到1.5米。)

即使类似的接近确实会导致冲突,也不一定会升级为战争。但在入侵乌克兰和充满敌意的背景下,俄罗斯的轻率态度变得更加危险。想象一下这样的场景:许多现代西方飞机可以探测到敌方飞机正在瞄准目标。如果他们遇到一名俄罗斯飞行员在瞄准模式下——例如,在黑海上空有争议的空域飞行时——他们可能会认为自己已经成为目标,并采取相应行动,从而导致潜在的伤亡事件。

如果这被视为违反北约第五条款——该条款认为对一个北约成员国的攻击就是对所有成员国的攻击——这样的接触和潜在的伤亡可能会把北约以至美国拖入冲突。当然,北约可以选择不把这一事件视为侵犯,也可以选择只采取最低限度的回应。但这可能会让人对北约的决心产生怀疑,令前线盟友感到恐惧,并且令普京更加胆大。

冷战的长期持续也令双方有时间和动力谈判军控协议。华盛顿及其盟友与莫斯科缔结了一系列详细的条约,尽管存在缺陷,但至少提供了可预测性和监督——这些都有助于在管理核危险方面建立长期关系。

然而,近年来,双方都轻率地抛弃了其中的许多协定,认为它们过时了,而且带来不便的限制。《新削减战略武器条约》现在是对美俄核武器数量和类型的唯一限制,该条约将于2026年到期,几乎没有续签的希望。已经废除的条约有2002年乔治·布什废除的《反弹道导弹条约》,以及2007年普京“暂停”执行《欧洲常规武装力量条约》。与今天的危机最相关的是,在2019年,特朗普总统废除了《中程导弹条约》,原因是美国声称俄罗斯违反了该条约,而且中国也在加强军备(尽管中国不是该条约的缔约国)。

里根总统和苏联领导人戈尔巴乔夫在1987年签署的《中程导弹条约》彻底消除了这类武器。如今,该条约已经不复存在,普京声称,他担心北约可能会在乌克兰领土上部署此类武器,针对俄罗斯的目标。他提到了这种可能性,并否认乌克兰是一个独立的国家,这是他入侵乌克兰的动机之一。

即使莫斯科能够重返谈判桌(在可预见的未来,这种可能性似乎微乎其微),也需要数年艰苦的谈判才能恢复这些条约。与其他损失——军方之间的交流、大使馆和领事馆工作人员遭到驱逐——以及高超音速导弹和网络战等新型武器的开发相比,这些条约的消失尤其令人痛心。世界上两个最大的军事大国现在几乎完全孤立地运作,这对所有人都是一种危险。

另一个问题是文化。对于那些在冷战时期长大的人来说,热核冲突的威胁无处不在。然而,在西方和俄罗斯之间经历了几十年的和平之后,这种集体文化意识在很大程度上已经消失——尽管核冲突的威胁仍然存在,并且在过去的一周内重新上升到冷战以来的水平。

这位俄罗斯总统现在明确地结束了后冷战时代,这个时代建立在欧洲主要陆地战争已经永远消失的假设上。从普京的入侵中可以非常清楚地看出,他不打算保持相当于恒定的空速、高度和航向这样的地缘政治地位。如果在他的鲁莽领导下,他的飞行员再次接近北约飞机,或挑衅与乌克兰接壤的四个北约成员国中的任何一个——无论是因为炫耀还是服从命令——这可能会把西方拖入战斗。而且不仅仅是以有限的方式。

这一次,美国及其盟友将不得不与俄罗斯以及中国、伊朗和朝鲜等正在崛起的力量抗衡。

出于这个原因,已经接受过训练并深刻意识到战术事件可能产生战略影响的西方军队,必须继续避免意外升级。而且,华盛顿不仅需要与盟友,也需要与美国公众沟通清楚,如果乌克兰问题蔓延到北约第五条款规定的领土,就可能产生风险——也就是引发战争。

身为一名历史学家需要培养一种时期划分意识。我感觉到一个时期的结束。我现在非常担心,与今后发生的事情相比,普京的鲁莽可能会让未来的历史学家认为,冷战和新冠大流行之间的那些年似乎是一段美好的时期。我担心我们会怀念从前的冷战。

Thursday, March 3, 2022

A Russian e-commerce store in China is suddenly seeing brisk business

 While western countries are imposing harsh sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, some in China are showing their support for Moscow by snapping up goods from a Russian e-commerce store.

As China continues to refrain from criticizing Russia over its actions in Ukraine, where Russia’s military operations entered their seventh day, pro-Moscow voices have become a strong presence on the Chinese internet. While Chinese social media platforms such as short video app Douyin have removed tens of thousands of accounts and comments spreading fake information and provocative content about the crisis, empathetic and anti-war messaging from Chinese citizens has also been censored or muffled by the authorities.

Recently, internet users are flocking to (link in Chinese), the National Pavilion of Russia, an online shop mainly selling Russian food products on Chinese e-commerce platform JD.com, according to Chinese nationalist outlet Guancha. According to the registration information on JD.com, the shop is under a China-foreign joint venture whose legal representative is Sergey Batsev, a China representative for Business Russia, an organization representing the country’s small and medium entrepreneurs outside the commodities sector. The shop is the only e-commerce platform backed by the Russian embassy in China, according to a 2021 report from Shaanxi Daily, a news outlet supervised by the Communist Party branch of Shaanxi province.

A screenshot of a Russian e-commerce store chased by Chinese consumers
SCREEN GRAB
The Russian online shop on JD.com.

The shop offers goods like Russian-branded chocolate cookies for 16.8 yuan ($2.7), mineral water for 20 yuan, and fruit juice for 70 yuan.

Purple candy from Russia's snack maker KDV
SCREEN GRAB
Purple candy from Russian snack maker KDV , which is currently sold out in the shop.

Currently, most of the products in the shop are sold out, prompting the outlet to put up a video in which Sergey thanked  Chinese shoppers for their support for Russia “at a difficult time like this.” “In this complex and changing international situation, we see the friendship of our old Chinese friends,” he said in the video, which was released yesterday (March 2), according to Guancha. Sergey also urged Chinese customers to “shop rationally.”

In response, some users joked that this is their way of sanctioning Russia, to snap up the country’s snacks so Russians couldn’t get it themselves. “Could they get Putin to sell the products on a livestream? That way my shopping desire will inflate,” said another.

In China, where there are few allowed forms of activism, citizens often express their political stances through rejecting or purchasing certain goods. Last year, brands like Nike and H&M faced boycotts from Chinese consumers for their pledges to not to use cotton from Xinjiang over forced labor concerns.

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

有关俄国入侵乌克兰 中国答不出的三个问题

 俄乌战事爆发,中国坚持要以“对话、协商、谈判”的方式解决。但俄军持续从三方入侵,并往乌克兰首都基辅前进。在外界希望北京明确表态时,中国外交部发言人华春莹舌战外媒记者,为中国可能的做法留余地。

(德国之声中文网)  中国外交部周四 (2月24日)的例行新闻会上,外媒记者对北京在俄乌战争上的立场紧追不舍,不过除了谴责美国,中国政府似乎还没决定如何定调。

1.俄罗斯对乌克兰是不是入侵?

中国外交部发言人华春莹引述俄方说法,表示“武装力量不会对城市实施导弹、航空和火炮袭击”。

面对外媒记者问题中直接提及俄罗斯侵略乌克兰,华春莹说那是“西方媒体的定义”,重申乌克兰演变至今,背后有复杂的历史因素。

她引用美国前国务卿基辛格(Henry Alfred Kissinger)对乌克兰的评论,说“如果乌克兰想要生存和繁荣,就不能成为任何一方对抗另一方的前哨,而应成为东西方之间的桥梁。”

华春莹反问记者,美国对伊拉克和阿富汗采取军事行动时,有用“侵略”这个词吗?

没想到法新社记者回怼,“美国2003年入侵伊拉克,我社当时使用了‘入侵’一词”,并反问如果中国认为美方在伊拉克的所作所为侵犯了伊拉克的主权和领土完整,为什么对乌克兰没有相同反应,是不是“双标”?

华春莹说:“我不是俄罗斯外交部发言人,不会站在俄方的立场讲话。”她重申中国“作为旁观者和非当事方应该秉持客观公正立场”,也说「公正的斡旋调解不仅要看到眼前,也要看到事情的整个来龙去脉,不仅要推动治标也要治本。”

路透社记者也多次试图追问相关问题,并直接问“中方领导人是否支持普京总统入侵乌克兰”?华春莹则直接反击记者“先入为主、偏见傲慢、乱扣帽子”。

2.中国是否会谴责俄罗斯?

目前中国一贯的回应都是:“中方正密切关注最新事态。我们呼吁各方保持克制,避免局势失控”。

北京目前定调,是美方“拱火点火”向乌克兰运送大量武器弹药,“推高紧张、煽动战争”,而中国则是一开始就在劝说。现在要指责中国没有动作是“不负责任”。

华春莹被问到,中方是否会呼吁俄罗斯撤军?她又再说了好几次:“我们呼吁所有相关方保持克制。”

多次被反覆追问中方何时同美欧等国一起谴责时,华春莹话锋一转,说“这倒提醒我,正是你提到的美国等几个国家在不断干涉中国内政问题,基于虚假信息对中方发起各种攻击。”

她转移话题说:“在国际关系中,不应该老做这种强加于人的事情,而是应该根据事情本身的是非曲直,允许各国独立作出判断。”
华春莹面对记者持续提出有关问题,表示不满记者“一直在纠缠中国”。

她说:“中国是当事方吗?点火的人、煽火的人、火上浇油的人是谁?中国有句话叫做解铃还须系铃人,乌克兰问题需要直接当事方谈判解决。你们执意用的一些词很容易让我们联想到,那些基于虚假信息和谣言动辄对中国妄加的指责,让我们觉得很不舒服。”

3.中国在乌克兰问题上有不同標准?

外媒记者质疑,中国常说要尊重国家主权和领土完整,却在乌克兰问题上态度暧昧,是否双重標准。华春莹没有直接回答,而是再次把矛头指向西方,从“八国联军”开始细数中国主权和领土如何受到“侵略”,也指控美国“在涉疆、涉港、涉台等问题上肆意干涉中国内政、破坏损害中国主权安全”,说中国是“唯一一个还没有实现祖国完全统一的安理会常任理事国”。

她强调,中国不是什么事都没做,提到中国国家主席习近平近期和法国总统馬克洪通话,以及中国外长王毅视讯出席慕安会时都有做出呼吁,要各方“坚持政治解决”。

法新社记者也以中国被指控在新疆实施“种族灭绝”被中方称为“世纪谎言”为例,询问俄罗斯是否向中方提供证据,证明乌克兰境内存在“种族灭绝”?如果没有,是否准備称此为“世纪谎言”?华春莹则专注回应新疆没有“种族灭绝”,表示对于乌东地区发生的事情不了解。

至于中方在联合国安理会将发布阿尔巴尼亚和美国起草的决议后会如何投票。华春莹说:“我们会基于中方一贯立场,本著联合国宪章宗旨原则处理相关问题。”

中国外交部全文:https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/fyrbt_673021/202202/t20220224_10645295.shtml

(中国外交部)

Monday, February 28, 2022

中国为普京喝彩者当醒,战争狂人岂有善终?

 俄罗斯入侵乌克兰以来,欧美和亚太主流国际社会的一系列制裁措施让俄罗斯顿成国际弃儿。观察人士预计,严厉的国际制裁的影响力逐渐显现之后,俄罗斯将不可避免地迅速沦为世界三流国家。但是普京的狂妄和野心却在中国赢得一片喝彩,外交部发言人华春莹以美国和北约当年攻打南联盟为普京辩护,拒绝称俄罗斯为侵略者。


官媒盛赞普京有魄力、有胆识、有实力,羡慕之情溢于言表。民间众多吃瓜群众更是将“普大帝”奉为神明,“乌拉”、“万岁”的欢呼声不绝于耳。但试着回想,20世纪国际法和国际秩序建立以来,威胁世界和平的侵略者几人能有善终?

北京之春荣誉主编胡平分析认为,中国支持俄罗斯并非理智选择,而是在反美反西方框架下的互相利用。

他说:“这次中国政府和很多民间舆论之所以采取这种立场,是因为他们把整个这件事放在了反美、反西方这个大框架之下。他们把普京打乌克兰看成是俄国反美国、俄国反西方,俄国和美国、西方对着干。因此冲着这一点,他们就采取了支持的态度,这并不表明他们自己的看法、利益和俄国怎么一致。我相信从这个角度也可以看出,目前中国的联盟他们并不是志同道合、利益一致,而是在于一种互相利用。”

俄罗斯入侵乌克兰,中国官方公然为普京辩护。官媒赞扬普京有魄力、有胆略、有实力。但一些文化精英的分析观察冷静独立,与官方持不同看法。香港资深传媒人纪硕鸣分析说,中国官方舆论只讲阵营不问是非,但民间已出现越来越多的冷静思考和独立判断。

他说:“外界看到的可能不一定是真相。今天中国民间,我自己看到在一些微信群的小群交流中,绝大多数的网民是有是非、有判断力的,尤其是对侵略者。我觉得评估网上言论,反对入侵的应该是占大多数的。对入侵者,如果定义为入侵者、侵略者的话,我想没有多少人,除非那些激进的狂人会叫好,大部分人是反对的。所以有人也会在群里面直指那些好战的、对乌克兰发侮辱性语言的那些人,大多数人并没有跟着官方走。官方也没有一定封号,但它对文章的推流是有控制的。比如有关收留乌克兰美女的言论发出以后,微博、抖音等平台后来就开始打击这种言论。甚至官方这个媒体中心社,昨天也呼吁对战争要理性发言,切莫做隔岸观火的低俗看客。所以在俄罗斯乌克兰之战中,我觉得中国即使官方,也有明显的难言之隐,它是被动的。”

中共官媒报道称,美国、北约没有出兵干预俄罗斯入侵乌克兰是在出卖乌克兰,而陆续出台的经济制裁对拥有中国为后盾的俄罗斯根本无济于事。纪硕鸣则认为,美国、北约、欧盟把经济战和持久战结合起来,能够把乌克兰作为终结普京极权生涯的坟场。

他说:“实际上对中国来说,它主要扮演一个吃瓜群众,都想把事情搞大。我觉得在俄乌突事件过程中,美国已经有过沙盘推演,充分认证了利弊,要不要直接介入将事态扩大。或许俄罗斯本身就希望美国等西方国家介入,普京早就发出过核威胁。有一种说法,俄乌战争各方有不同的利益考量。俄罗斯设定的是有限战争,逼迫乌克兰中立,遏制北约东扩,目的是要速战速决。美国与欧盟,北约看到这个弱点,希望通过各种支持力量,让乌克兰打持久战,最后将乌克兰战场变成终结普京政治生涯的坟场。我记得就在昨天,美国总统拜登接受媒体访问,他讲美国只有两种选择:一种是与俄罗斯开战,开启第三次世界大战;还有一种就是进行制裁。实际上制裁,即使俄罗斯在跟乌克兰之间打赢了这一战,换来西方国家的经济制裁,俄罗斯也会有很惨重的经济代价。根据世界银行的数据,俄罗斯经济坠落的迹象早已出现。新冠病毒爆发前的2019年,俄罗斯的GDP是1.6万亿美元,远不及2013年的2.2万亿美元。俄罗斯央行总裁本来就警告,今年俄罗斯(经济)增长可能放缓 2%到3%。摩根大通预计,今年下半年制裁将使俄罗斯的GDP减少3.5%。这样看来,它的经济有可能是负增长。但是如果制裁本身没有被妥善执行,效果还是会令人质疑的。”

《北京之春》荣誉主编胡平表示, 普京下令对乌克兰的入侵使得战后国际秩序面临空前挑战,而他本人也面临空前孤立。

他说:“普京这次行动毫无疑问是对二战后国际秩序的最严峻挑战,他已经造成了自己空前的孤立。在这种情况下,普京很难达到他的目的,相反,他很有可能因为这件事遭到国际上的普遍孤立,使他包括俄国的处境进一步恶化。这种可能性是不能排除的。当然还要取决于他下面这一步怎么走,会不会走那么远。”


Why the Chinese Internet Is Cheering Russia's Invasion

 Li Yuan

Damage from a missile in an apartment building in Kyiv, Ukraine, Feb. 25, 2022. (Lynsey Addario/The New York Times)
Damage from a missile in an apartment building in Kyiv, Ukraine, Feb. 25, 2022. (Lynsey Addario/The New York Times)

If President Vladimir Putin is looking for international support and approval for his invasion of Ukraine, he can turn to the Chinese internet.

Its users have called him “Putin the Great,” “the best legacy of the former Soviet Union” and “the greatest strategist of this century.” They have chastised Russians who protested against the war, saying they had been brainwashed by the United States.

Putin’s speech Thursday, which essentially portrayed the conflict as one waged against the West, won loud cheers on Chinese social media. Many people said they were moved to tears. “If I were Russian, Putin would be my faith, my light,” wrote @jinyujiyiliangxiaokou, a user of Twitter-like platform Weibo.

As the world overwhelmingly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese internet, for the most part, is pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.

Putin’s portrayal of Russia as a victim of the West’s political, ideological and military aggression has resonated deeply with many on social media. It dovetails with China’s narrative that the United States and its allies are afraid of China’s rise and the alternative world order it could create.

For its part, the Chinese government, Russia’s most powerful partner, has been more circumspect. Officials have declined to call Russia’s invasion an invasion nor have they condemned it. But they have not endorsed it, either.

Under Xi Jinping, its top leader, China has taken a more confrontational stance on foreign policy in recent years. Its diplomats, the state media’s journalists and some of the government’s most influential advisers are far more hawkish than they used to be.

Together, they have helped to shape a generation of online warriors who view the world as a zero-sum game between China and the West, especially the United States.

A translation of Putin’s speech Thursday by a nationalistic news site went viral, to say the least. The Weibo hashtag #putin10000wordsspeechfulltext got 1.1 billion views within 24 hours.

“This is an exemplary speech of war mobilization,” said one Weibo user, @apjam.

“Why was I moved to tears by the speech?” wrote @ASsicangyueliang. “Because this is also how they’ve been treating China.”

Mostly young, nationalistic online users like these, known as “little pinks” in China, have taken their cue from the so-called “wolf warrior” diplomats who seem to relish verbal battle with journalists and their Western counterparts.

The day before Russia’s invasion, for instance, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said in a daily press briefing that the United States was the “culprit” behind the tensions over Ukraine.

“When the U.S. drove five waves of NATO expansion eastward all the way to Russia’s doorstep and deployed advanced offensive strategic weapons in breach of its assurances to Russia, did it ever think about the consequences of pushing a big country to the wall?” asked the spokeswoman, Hua Chunying.

The next day, as Hua was peppered with questions about whether China considered Russia’s “special military operation” an invasion, she turned the briefing into a critique of the United States. “You may go ask the U.S.: They started the fire and fanned the flames,” she said. “How are they going to put out the fire now?”

She bristled at the U.S. State Department’s comment that China should respect state sovereignty and territorial integrity, a long-standing tenet of Chinese foreign policy.

“The U.S. is in no position to tell China off,” she said. Then she mentioned the three journalists who were killed in NATO’s bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, a tragic incident that prompted widespread anti-U.S. protests in China.

“NATO still owes the Chinese people a debt of blood,” she said.

That sentence became the top Weibo hashtag as Russia was bombing Ukraine. The hashtag, created by the state-run People’s Daily newspaper, has been viewed more than 1 billion times. In posts below it, users called the United States a “warmonger” and a “paper tiger.”

Other Weibo users were bemused. “If I only browsed Weibo,” wrote user @____26156, “I would have believed that it was the United States that had invaded Ukraine.”

The strong pro-war sentiment online has shocked many Chinese. Some WeChat users on my timeline warned that they would block any Putin supporters. Many people shared articles about China’s long, troubled history with its neighbor, including Russian annexation of Chinese territory and a border conflict with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s.

One widely shared WeChat article was titled, “All those who cheer for war are idiots,” plus an expletive. “The grand narrative of nationalism and great-power chauvinism has squeezed out their last bit of humanity,” the author wrote.

It was eventually deleted by WeChat for violating regulations.

The pro-Russia sentiment is in line with the two countries’ growing official solidarity, culminating in a joint statement Feb. 4, when Putin met with Xi in Beijing at the Winter Olympics.

The countries’ friendship has “no limits,” they declared.

Given that the leaders met just weeks before the invasion, it would be understandable to conclude that China should have had better knowledge of the Kremlin’s plans. But growing evidence suggests that the echo chamber of China’s foreign policy establishment might have misled not only the country’s internet users, but its own officials.

My colleague Edward Wong reported that over a period of three months, senior U.S. officials held meetings with their Chinese counterparts and shared intelligence that detailed Russia’s troop buildup around Ukraine. The Americans asked the Chinese officials to intervene with the Russians and tell them not to invade.

The Chinese brushed the Americans off, saying that they did not think an invasion was in the works. U.S. intelligence showed that on one occasion, Beijing shared the Americans’ information with Moscow.

Recent speeches by some of China’s most influential advisers to the government on international relations suggest that the miscalculation may have been based on deep distrust of the United States. They saw it as a declining power that wanted to push for war with false intelligence because it would benefit the United States, financially and strategically.

Jin Canrong, a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, told state broadcaster China Central Television, or CCTV, on Feb. 20 that the U.S. government had been talking about imminent war because an unstable Europe would help Washington, as well as the country’s financial and energy industries. After the war started, he admitted to his 2.4 million Weibo followers that he was surprised.

Just before the invasion, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, ridiculed the Biden administration’s predictions of war in a 52-minute video program. “Why did ‘Sleepy Joe’ use such poor-quality intelligence on Ukraine and Russia?” he asked, using Donald Trump’s favorite nickname for President Joe Biden.

Earlier in the week, Shen had held a conference call about the Ukraine crisis with a brokerage’s clients, titled, “A war that would not be fought.”

When the fighting began, he, too, acknowledged to his Weibo followers, who number 1.6 million, that he had been wrong.

Nationalistic emotions on social media were also sparked by the Chinese Embassy in Ukraine. Unlike most embassies in Kyiv, it didn’t urge its citizens to evacuate. Hours into the war, it advised Chinese people to post the country’s red flag conspicuously on their vehicles when traveling, indicating that it would provide protection.

The state-owned People’s Daily, CCTV and many top government agencies posted about that on Weibo. Many people used the hashtag #theChineseredwillprotectyou, referring to the flag.

The idea echoed a movie, the 2017 Chinese blockbuster “Wolf Warrior 2,” which ends with the hero taking fellow passengers safely through a war zone in Africa as he holds a Chinese flag high. “It’s Chinese,” an armed fighter says. “Hold your fire.”

Two days later, the embassy reversed course, urging Chinese citizens not to display anything that would disclose their identity. Chinese people living in Ukraine advised fellow citizens not to make comments on social media that could jeopardize their security.

As the war drags on, and especially if Beijing calibrates its position in the face of an international backlash, the online pro-Russia sentiment in China could ebb. In the meantime, other internet users are getting impatient with the nationalists.

“Putin should enlist the Chinese little pinks and send them to the frontline,” wrote Weibo user @xinshuiqingliu. “They’re his die-hard fans and extremely brave fighters.”

© 2022 The New York Times Company

Sunday, February 27, 2022

Yuval Noah Harari argues that what’s at stake in Ukraine is the direction of human history

 Humanity’s greatest political achievement has been the decline of war. That is now in jeopardy

By Yuval Noah Harari

 

At the heart of the Ukraine crisis lies a fundamental question about the nature of history and the nature of humanity: is change possible? Can humans change the way they behave, or does history repeat itself endlessly, with humans forever condemned to re-enact past tragedies without changing anything except the décor?

One school of thought firmly denies the possibility of change. It argues that the world is a jungle, that the strong prey upon the weak and that the only thing preventing one country from wolfing down another is military force. This is how it always was, and this is how it always will be. Those who don’t believe in the law of the jungle are not just deluding themselves, but are putting their very existence at risk. They will not survive long.

Another school of thought argues that the so-called law of the jungle isn’t a natural law at all. Humans made it, and humans can change it. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the first clear evidence for organised warfare appears in the archaeological record only 13,000 years ago. Even after that date there have been many periods devoid of archaeological evidence for war. Unlike gravity, war isn’t a fundamental force of nature. Its intensity and existence depend on underlying technological, economic and cultural factors. As these factors change, so does war.

Evidence of such change is all around us. Over the past few generations, nuclear weapons have turned war between superpowers into a mad act of collective suicide, forcing the most powerful nations on Earth to find less violent ways to resolve conflict. Whereas great-power wars, such as the second Punic war or the second world war, have been a salient feature for much of history, in the past seven decades there has been no direct war between superpowers.

During the same period, the global economy has been transformed from one based on materials to one based on knowledge. Where once the main sources of wealth were material assets such as gold mines, wheat fields and oil wells, today the main source of wealth is knowledge. And whereas you can seize oil fields by force, you cannot acquire knowledge that way. The profitability of conquest has declined as a result.

Finally, a tectonic shift has taken place in global culture. Many elites in history—Hun chieftains, Viking jarls and Roman patricians, for example—viewed war positively. Rulers from Sargon the Great to Benito Mussolini sought to immortalise themselves by conquest (and artists such as Homer and Shakespeare happily obliged such fancies). Other elites, such as the Christian church, viewed war as evil but inevitable.

In the past few generations, however, for the first time in history the world became dominated by elites who see war as both evil and avoidable. Even the likes of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, not to mention the Merkels and Arderns of the world, are very different types of politicians than Attila the Hun or Alaric the Goth. They usually come to power with dreams of domestic reforms rather than foreign conquests. While in the realm of art and thought, most of the leading lights —from Pablo Picasso to Stanley Kubrick—are better known for depicting the senseless horrors of combat than for glorifying its architects.

As a result of all these changes, most governments stopped seeing wars of aggression as an acceptable tool to advance their interests, and most nations stopped fantasising about conquering and annexing their neighbours. It is simply not true that military force alone prevents Brazil from conquering Uruguay or prevents Spain from invading Morocco.

The parameters of peace

The decline of war is evident in numerous statistics. Since 1945, it has become relatively rare for international borders to be redrawn by foreign invasion, and not a single internationally recognised country has been completely wiped off the map by external conquest. There has been no shortage of other types of conflicts, such as civil wars and insurgencies. But even when taking all types of conflict into account, in the first two decades of the 21st century human violence has killed fewer people than suicide, car accidents or obesity-related diseases. Gunpowder has become less lethal than sugar.

Scholars argue back and forth about the exact statistics, but it is important to look beyond the maths. The decline of war has been a psychological as well as statistical phenomenon. Its most important feature has been a major change in the very meaning of the term “peace”. For most of history peace meant only “the temporary absence of war”. When people in 1913 said that there was peace between France and Germany, they meant that the French and German armies were not clashing directly, but everybody knew that a war between them might nevertheless erupt at any moment.

In recent decades “peace” has come to mean “the implausibility of war”. For many countries, being invaded and conquered by the neighbours has become almost inconceivable. I live in the Middle East, so I know perfectly well that there are exceptions to these trends. But recognising the trends is at least as important as being able to point out the exceptions.

The “new peace” hasn’t been a statistical fluke or hippie fantasy. It has been reflected most clearly in coldly-calculated budgets. In recent decades governments around the world have felt safe enough to spend an average of only about 6.5% of their budgets on their armed forces, while spending far more on education, health care and welfare.

We tend to take it for granted, but it is an astonishing novelty in human history. For thousands of years, military expenditure was by far the biggest item on the budget of every prince, khan, sultan and emperor. They hardly spent a penny on education or medical help for the masses.

The decline of war didn’t result from a divine miracle or from a change in the laws of nature. It resulted from humans making better choices. It is arguably the greatest political and moral achievement of modern civilisation. Unfortunately, the fact that it stems from human choice also means that it is reversible.

Technology, economics and culture continue to change. The rise of cyber weapons, AI-driven economies and newly militaristic cultures could result in a new era of war, worse than anything we have seen before. To enjoy peace, we need almost everyone to make good choices. By contrast, a poor choice by just one side can lead to war.

This is why the Russian threat to invade Ukraine should concern every person on Earth. If it again becomes normative for powerful countries to wolf down their weaker neighbours, it would affect the way people all over the world feel and behave. The first and most obvious result of a return to the law of the jungle would be a sharp increase in military spending at the expense of everything else. The money that should go to teachers, nurses and social workers would instead go to tanks, missiles and cyber weapons.

A return to the jungle would also undermine global co-operation on problems such as preventing catastrophic climate change or regulating disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. It isn’t easy to work alongside countries that are preparing to eliminate you. And as both climate change and an AI arms race accelerate, the threat of armed conflict will only increase further, closing a vicious circle that may well doom our species.

History’s direction

If you believe that historic change is impossible, and that humanity never left the jungle and never will, the only choice left is whether to play the part of predator or prey. Given such a choice, most leaders would prefer to go down in history as alpha predators, and add their names to the grim list of conquerors that unfortunate pupils are condemned to memorize for their history exams.

But maybe change is possible? Maybe the law of the jungle is a choice rather than an inevitability? If so, any leader who chooses to conquer a neighbour will get a special place in humanity’s memory, far worse than your run-of-the-mill Tamerlane. He will go down in history as the man who ruined our greatest achievement. Just when we thought we were out of the jungle, he pulled us back in.

I don’t know what will happen in Ukraine. But as a historian I do believe in the possibility of change. I don’t think this is naivety—it’s realism. The only constant of human history is change. And that’s something that perhaps we can learn from the Ukrainians. For many generations, Ukrainians knew little but tyranny and violence. They endured two centuries of tsarist autocracy (which finally collapsed amidst the cataclysm of the first world war). A brief attempt at independence was quickly crushed by the Red Army that re-established Russian rule. Ukrainians then lived through the terrible man-made famine of the Holodomor, Stalinist terror, Nazi occupation and decades of soul-crushing Communist dictatorship. When the Soviet Union collapsed, history seemed to guarantee that Ukrainians would again go down the path of brutal tyranny – what else did they know?

But they chose differently. Despite history, despite grinding poverty and despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Ukrainians established a democracy. In Ukraine, unlike in Russia and Belarus, opposition candidates repeatedly replaced incumbents. When faced with the threat of autocracy in 2004 and 2013, Ukrainians twice rose in revolt to defend their freedom. Their democracy is a new thing. So is the “new peace”. Both are fragile, and may not last long. But both are possible, and may strike deep roots. Every old thing was once new. It all comes down to human choices.

Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2022.


Thursday, February 24, 2022

看看曾经的《布达佩斯备忘录》,说说视条约如废纸的俄罗斯

苏联解体之前,乌克兰是4个拥有核武器加盟共和国之一。并且,继承了130枚SS-19和46枚SS-24型导弹,并且拥有相当多的核弹发射井和核弹头。在当时是仅次于美国,俄罗斯的第三大储备国。

苏联解体后,为了保证乌克兰自愿放弃核武之后,不受军事入侵,保证乌克兰的主权和领土完整,1994年,美国,英国,俄罗斯和乌克兰,共同签署的《布达佩斯备忘录》。文件中规定了乌克兰承诺放弃核武器之后,俄,美,英作为担保方,保证乌克兰的独立、主权、安全和领土完整,并且不干涉乌克兰的内政。

可是乌克兰销毁完核武器后,才20年时间,《布达佩斯备忘录》在俄罗斯眼里就成了过时失效的历史文件了。

2014年,俄罗斯吞并了乌克兰的领土克里米亚。

怎么办?乌克兰人的觉得保证自己安全的唯一办法就是加入北约,有了这条粗腿就应该不用害怕俄罗斯了。是俄罗斯吞克里米亚在先,而且还对乌克兰东部二个州虎视眈眈(最新消息,普京已经承认这两个州独立,这就违反了2014年的明斯克协议 ),乌克兰想加入北约保证自己的安全在后。

但普京不干了,于是就上演了重兵陈列俄乌边境一幕。

这就是俄乌危机的由来,完全是俄罗斯言而无信、仗势欺人的结果。

要说毁约,俄罗斯说第二,没人敢认第一。看看曾经和老毛子签的条约吧:




这就是俄罗斯,一个毫无信义的国家。

特朗普将如何输掉与中国的贸易战

 编者:本文是 保罗·克鲁格曼于2024年11月15日发表于《纽约时报》的一篇评论文章。特朗普的重新当选有全球化退潮的背景,也有美国民主党没能及时推出有力候选人的因素。相较于民主党的执政,特朗普更加具有个人化的特点,也给时局曾经了更多的不确定性。 好消息:我认为特朗普不会引发全球...