Can Europe be Woken up by the Tragedy in Ukraine?欧洲能否被乌克兰悲剧唤醒？

Three years into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Ukraine is suddenly facing the fate of being abandoned by the United States: US President Donald Trump, who has been in office for less than a month, has made a quick move with his characteristic efficiency, first breaking Russia’s isolation since the conflict by suddenly speaking on the phone with Putin without knowing his European allies. Subsequently, Defense Minister Haguseth publicly claimed at a meeting at NATO headquarters that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to restore its pre-2014 borders and join NATO, and also demanded that Europe assume responsibility for Ukraine’s security and reconstruction. What is even more shocking to Europe is that when the foreign ministers of the United States and Russia met with Saudi Arabia on this issue, neither Europe nor Ukraine was invited. It is no wonder that the European media have compared it to another Munich agreement and a new Yalta where the new powers carved up spheres of influence.

If you only analyze the Trump factor, it does not seem complicated: first, he opposed aid to Ukraine during the election, and now it is just fulfilling the election promise. Second, as a businessman, he thinks that it is really stupid for the United States to invest huge sums of money in a war with no economic benefits. To this end, he not only has to quickly get rid of the burden of Ukraine, but also asks Ukraine for $500 billion in rare earths in return.

But Trump did not come into being in a vacuum, not only with a history to follow, but also as a reaction to cold geopolitics and real international relations.

As early as the founding of the United States, in the era of the founding fathers of the United States, George W. Washington warned in his political testament: Never interfere in conflicts between Europeans. Since then, isolationism has repeatedly gained the upper hand in the United States: in the Andrew Jackson era, between the two world wars. Now it’s just another resurrection of Trump.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once reminded Nixon that he should shoulder his responsibilities to South Vietnam, otherwise he would make the world think that ” To be an enemy of the U.S. is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” However, the collapse of South Vietnam, the exile of the Shah of Iran, the fall of the Afghan government, and the fate of Ukraine today all illustrate this famous quote and reveal the brutal nature of international relations.

The roots of the tragedy in Ukraine

Only more than 30 years after the establishment of Ukraine’s independence, the country has become a battlefield in the game of great powers, with human lives ruined, sovereignty not guaranteed, and now it is facing the fate of being abandoned by the

United States. The immaturity of the national elite and the lack of clarity in nderstanding the brutality of international relations are the main causes.

At the time of its founding, Ukraine had one-third of the former Soviet Union, more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, and 42 strategic bombers, making it the third largest nuclear power in the world at that time. But it has abandoned it under the so-called security and independence guarantees of the United States, Britain and Russia. The United States has played a decisive role in this process, which can be described as coercion and inducement.

Of course, if we go back to the historical scene at that time, Ukraine, which had just become independent and was in ruins, had no other choice: it could not confront the two great powers of the United States and Russia—- it depended on Russia for energy, it depended on the United States for economic aid, and it could not afford the maintenance and maintenance of nuclear weapons, let alone rebuild the corresponding scientific research system. If the service life is up, there is not even the cost of dismantling. But the problem is that when it decides to give up nuclear weapons, it should understand that its security cannot be relied on on a piece of paper, and that it will require a cautious foreign policy and sophisticated geopolitical skills. After all, Ukraine is also located in a geopolitically complex Europe, and it has been more than 300 years since its merger with Russia, so it should be well versed in the nature of international relations. Europe has been signing contracts for hundreds of years, but wars have never stopped, and borders have been constantly changing. The so-called treaty is only the result of the balance of power at that time, and once this balance of power is lost, the treaty will be nothing more than a piece of paper. Not to mention a small country like Ukraine, even if it is as strong as Russia: the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001, and Trump adopted the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty in 2019, all of which are related to Russia’s security, but they can only be accepted.

Ukraine’s geographical and historical conditions dictate that its geopolitical risks and internal governance are very difficult. First, there are a large number of ethnic Russians in the east, and if relations with Russia are not properly handled, domestic stability cannot be achieved. Second, energy dependence on Russia is inextricably linked, and the economic structure is inextricably linked, which is difficult to dismantle. Third, Russia is its neighbor, with a border of nearly 2,000 kilometers. Fourth, the western region is pro-Western and has a strong desire to join the European Union. In addition, relations between Russia and the West are highly volatile, sometimes antagonistic and sometimes cooperative. Ukraine is often the target of contention and exploitation by both sides.

Such an internal and external situation has made Ukraine’s foreign and internal affairs almost completely integrated, and the slightest carelessness will cause a crisis of internal and external linkage. This places extremely high demands on the level of state governance of the Ukrainian political elite. But apparently, the Ukrainian elite is simply not up to the task, so much so that it has brought Ukraine to the disastrous situation it is today.

First of all, Ukraine’s good-neighborly relations, especially political mutual trust, with a very powerful Russia, are undoubtedly the most important national strategic interests. This is the basic plate of Ukraine’s security and sovereign integrity. Ukraine cannot challenge Russia’s bottom line under any circumstances.

But in 2008, Ukraine began to cross the red line and apply to join NATO. Thankfully, in 2010, the pro-Russian Yanukovych was elected president and his application was postponed. But the decision to postpone accession in 2014 due to harsh conditions in the European Union triggered a political crisis, with several pro-European regions in the west declaring independence and eventually overthrowing Yanukovych’s democratically elected president by an “Maidan Revolution”. This internal crisis quickly turned into an external one: Russia added Crimea to its territory. In this context, the new Ukrainian government decided to make NATO membership a priority. In February 2019, the constitution was amended, and NATO membership was written into the Ukrainian constitution. At this point, there is no room for compromise in the relationship between the two sides.

Secondly, Poland and Hungary joined NATO in 1999, and Slovakia and Romania joined NATO in 2004. Almost at the same time, these countries also joined the EU. So far, the most unfavorable geopolitical situation has emerged in Ukraine: it is caught between two increasingly opposing powers. In particular, Poland, a member of NATO, has long had tense relations with Russia, and for this reason, it has actively pushed Ukraine closer to the West and tried to build Ukraine into the front line of resistance against Russia.

In this context, Ukraine’s security depends not only on its relationship with these two camps, but also on the relationship between them and how it maintains a balance between them. Unfortunately, due to NATO’s repeated eastward expansion, the two camps have turned against each other, and both have used Ukraine as a pawn in the game, and have intervened in their internal affairs. It is also at this critical stage that if Ukraine first maintains its basic position with Russia, and then maintains relations with the West by actively joining the European Union, it may have the effect of Yugoslavia being left and right between the two camps during the Cold War. In fact, in the context of the Sino-US game, many countries are facing a similar situation, but they can maintain the balance and reap dividends from it. But it is a pity that the Ukrainian political elite lacks such intelligence.

Finally, in 2021, when the United States abandoned the Afghan government that it had supported for 20 years, how could Ukraine believe that the United States would support it to the end? As a result, within three years, it faced the fate of being abandoned by the United States.

To put it simply, if a small country is caught between the big countries, if the relations between the big countries are opposed, the small country will be the first to suffer. If relations between major powers improve, the first to be sacrificed will also be small countries. These are the tragedies of small countries that have been repeated in the history of international relations. The fate of Ukraine is nothing more than another repeat of history.

There are four main ways in which a country can ensure its own security. One is that it is a big country in itself, such as the five permanent members of the United Nations. Second, small or medium-sized countries join the bloc of big countries or are tied to the strategic interests of big countries. For example, the small and medium-sized countries that have joined NATO, North Korea, which is supported by China and Russia (China has sent troops to protect North Korea against foreign enemies three times in history), Japan and South Korea, which are supported by the United States, and Belarus, which has close relations with Russia. The third is the possession of nuclear weapons. For example, India, North Korea. Fourth, it is rich and militarily powerful. For example, Switzerland.

From a strength point of view, it is clear that Ukraine wants to choose to join a stronger NATO and a richer EU for security and economic development. It’s just that its geographical location dictates that this option simply doesn’t work. This is not only a geopolitical dilemma faced by Ukraine, but also faced by the former Yugoslavia in the nineties of the last century, and at an extremely high cost.

At that time, Yugoslavia was fighting against NATO, the most powerful NATO on its side, in order to defend the unity of the country. Its traditional ally, Russia, is far away and in the throes of economic transformation, and is unable to help. Eventually, the country disintegrated, and Serbia itself was hit hard. Later, when Kosovo declared independence in 2008, Serbia responded in a completely different way: it promised not to use force, actively applied for EU membership despite recognition of Kosovo by the EU and NATO, and allowed NATO troops to be stationed in Kosovo. If you want to talk about the degree of humiliation, I am afraid it is rare in human history. Because Serbia has realized that it must at all costs maintain peace with the most powerful NATO and the European Union around it, which is the basis of its national security. Even if the other side is infringing on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Otherwise, as a landlocked country, the EU blockade alone will not be able to withstand it. After the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Serbia invited the Russian foreign minister to visit, but the neighboring NATO countries blocked their airspace, and the visit had to be canceled.

It should be pointed out that during the Cold War, Yugoslavia was the object of the West’s great efforts to win over, and when Western European allies accepted Marshall’s aid, the United States also treated Yugoslavia in the same way. But the end of the Cold War, Yugoslavia was no longer valuable, and the West immediately and extremely coldly supported its disintegration by military means.

If today’s Ukraine can face the phenomenon like Serbia, it will be able to keep what is left. Otherwise, I don’t know what the fate will be after being abandoned by the United States.

Can Europe wake up?

Europe reacted completely differently to the 180-degree shift in the United States’ position on Ukraine in an instant: in addition to clearly expressing its opposition, it also announced the 16th round of sanctions against Russia and gathered in Kyiv on the third anniversary of the conflict to express strong support.

In terms of objective strength, Europe cannot ensure its own security without the United States, let alone protect Ukraine. Obviously, just as the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and today’s upheaval, Europe’s understanding and response can hardly be said to be pragmatic and rational.

First of all, the United States’ abandonment of Ukraine is not just a matter of giving up its responsibilities and throwing off its burden, nor is it a question of whether Trump himself is pro-Russian, let alone to draw Russia together to confront China. How can Trump, who pursues unilateralism, want a long-standing Russia, which has little political mutual trust, is far inferior to its allies, and needs to pay more in return, even if he doesn’t want a European ally who voluntarily supports him?

The reason lies in Trump’s very objective admission of a simple fact: the conflict cannot be ended by military means. The strength of Russia and Ukraine is completely asymmetrical, and the West can only provide assistance but cannot directly send troops, and the state of attrition between the two sides will continue for a long time. Three years of conflict have become a second Afghanistan for the United States, like Russia. The only difference is that Russia considers this a core interest, while the United States considers it not. So Trump’s defense secretary’s claim that Ukraine cannot regain lost territory and that it is impossible to join NATO is a moral betrayal in the eyes of Europe, but it is an indisputable fact. Because unless Russia is defeated on the battlefield—- which is again impossible, neither of these will be possible. It’s just that Europe doesn’t even recognize this basic fact.

Second, the United States held talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia without inviting or consulting Europe, which once again shows that the essence of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a confrontation between Russia and the United States, and only a compromise between these two countries can end this conflict. Supposedly, Europe is a third party, and it should and can be in the most favorable geopolitical position, maneuvering between Russia and the United States with ease. But as a result, Europe suffered the most from the conflict.

Now, when the United States decides to withdraw from this conflict, Europe, which should not have been involved, will have to deal with it with the courage to stand alone.

The reason why Europe is like this is, firstly, that it puts values first, ignores the reality of the great power game, loses its geopolitical thinking, and does not know how to advance or retreat. The second is its institutional attachment to the United States in terms of security formed after World War II and during the Cold War. NATO, with the United States at its core, can provide security guarantees for Europe on the one hand, and on the other hand, it can also call on European allies to cooperate with their own national interests. That is why Europe, despite the great need for Russian energy, did not prevent NATO’s eastward expansion. After the showdown between Russia and the United States in Ukraine, Europe will not be able to become the main victim left and right. Now it is even more abandoned by the United States, and it is not even qualified to participate in the negotiations, and it is also being demanded by the United States to assume all responsibility for Ukraine’s future security and reconstruction.

The current situation is that the United States wants to shake hands with Russia and make peace, and Europe, which is not the main party to the contradiction, will continue to confront Russia. It should be said that Europe, out of its own interests, should have tried its best to avoid this conflict, and after the conflict broke out, it should not be involved in this Russian-US confrontation. After all, Ukraine was part of Russia thirty years ago, and it is not a member of the European Union and NATO, and it is geopolitically inexplicable for Europe to do this. It’s like saying that when the United States fought Afghanistan, Europe participated as an ally, and when the United States withdrew, Europe would continue to fight.

Of course, Europe believes that this conflict is a matter of supreme security and that it cannot stay out of it. But Europe’s pre- and post-conflict practices have not been safeguarded.

Third, the United States has set aside Ukraine and Europe to hold talks with Russia alone, which shows that the strategic interests of Europe and the United States are different, and the United States has ignored the role and value of Europe.

In the eyes of the United States, China is the greatest challenge and threat, but Europe, which is far away from China and no longer seeks hegemony, does not see it that way, but sees it as a partner, a competitor and an adversary, or a competitive partner. The problem is that only the United States is soberly aware of this.

In the past, the United States relied on it because it was highly consistent with Europe’s strategic interests, but now the United States, which is relatively less powerful, wants to shrink globally and at the same time shift its limited resources to Asia. Even without Trump, the United States would have made a similar choice. The abandonment of Afghanistan was a bipartisan decision, and the European and Afghan governments did not sit at the negotiating table at the time, but were the result of direct negotiations between the United States and the Taliban. Today is nothing more than a replica of the war in Afghanistan. It can be said that the United States has been making a strategic shift since the Obama era, while Europe is still in the historical inertia of the Cold War.

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that Europe has been cooperating with the United States in its China containment strategy to varying degrees. The United States has put forward an Indo-Pacific strategy against China, and Europe has followed suit. It has also repeatedly escalated the Taiwan issue, which involves China’s core interests.

This is why even during the Biden era, there was a lot of damage to Europe’s interests, and the Trump era is just more bottomless. The supposedly rock-solid Atlantic Alliance is on the verge of collapse.

For Europe to get out of this predicament and avoid the mistake of the city gate fire, it needs to do four things:

First, we need to recognize that today’s world has changed, and great power games and geopolitics have re-mainstreamed. Europe must accelerate its strategic autonomy and rely on itself for security.

Second, the common strategic interests of Europe and the United States no longer exist, and there are huge differences between the two sides. It is no longer possible for the United States to sacrifice itself for the sake of European interests. Europe also needs to prioritize its own interests.

Third, Russia is a neighbor that cannot be moved, and if relations with it are not handled well, there will be no peace and stability in Europe. It needs to create new mechanisms for peacekeeping that can bring all the countries of Europe into account.

Fourth, join hands with China. China and the EU are far apart, there is no geopolitical tension, and the two sides have strategic interests in multipolarization and global governance. When Europe was sidelined by the United States, it was China that made it clear that Europe should sit at the negotiating table. Especially after Europe lost Russia, China became the only power it could leverage on.

For now, however, a troubled Europe is still in the same place, with no direction. “The Europeans are running around with their hair on fire”. Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said .It’s just that how much time is left for Europe to waste? 

俄乌冲突三年之际，乌克兰却突然面临被美国抛弃的命运：上任还不到一个月的美国总统特朗普以他特有的效率迅猛出手，先是在未知会欧洲盟友的情况下突然和普京通电话，打破了冲突以来俄罗斯的孤立处境。随后国防部长海格塞斯在北约总部的会议上公开声称乌克兰恢复2014年前的边界和加入北约不现实，还要求欧洲承担起乌克兰安全和重建的责任。更令欧洲震惊的是，美俄外长在沙特就此议题举行会晤时，欧洲和乌克兰均未被邀请。也难怪欧洲媒体把它比作是另一个慕尼黑协定和新的大国瓜分势力范围的雅尔塔。

如果仅从特朗普因素分析，似乎也并不复杂：一是选举时他就反对援助乌克兰，现在不过是兑现选举承诺而已。二是作为商人，他认为美国投入巨资打一场没有经济收益的战争实在是愚蠢。为此，他不仅要迅速甩掉乌克兰这个包袱，还索要乌克兰5000亿美元稀土作为回报。

但这并不是特朗普凭空产生的，它不仅有历史可循，更是冷酷的地缘政治和现实国际关系的反映。

早在美国立国之初的国父时代，乔治· 华盛顿在他的政治遗嘱中警告说：“永远不要干涉欧洲人之间的冲突。”此后孤立主义一再在美国占据上风：安德鲁·杰克逊时代、两次世界大战之间。现在不过是又一次借特朗普还魂。

美国前国务卿基辛格曾提醒尼克松要负起对南越的责任，否则就会让世界认为“成为美国敌人是危险的，但成为美国朋友是致命的”。 然而南越的崩溃、伊朗国王的流亡、阿富汗政府的垮台以及今天乌克兰面临的命运，都诠释了这句名言，也揭示了国际关系的残酷本质。

乌克兰悲剧的根源

乌克兰独立建国不过三十余年，国家就已沦为大国博弈的战场，生灵涂炭、主权不保，现在更面临被美国抛弃的命运。国家精英之不成熟、对残酷的国际关系缺乏清醒认识是主因。

乌克兰建国之时拥有前苏联三分之一、多达1700多枚核弹头，并有42架战略轰炸机，是当时世界第三大核国家。但它却在美英俄所谓的安全和独立保证下将之放弃。这个过程中美国起了决定性的作用，可谓威逼利诱。

当然，如果回到当时的历史场景，刚独立、百废待兴的乌克兰也没有其他选择：它既不可能对抗美俄两强——能源依赖俄罗斯，经济援助依赖美国，也承受不了核武器的维护、保养费用，更别说重建相应的科研体系。如果使用年限到了，甚至连拆除的费用都没有。但问题在于当它决定放弃核武器之时，就应该明白自己的安全并不能依靠一张纸，还需要谨慎的外交政策和成熟的地缘政治技巧。毕竟乌克兰也是身处地缘政治复杂的欧洲，更和俄罗斯合并也已经三百余年，耳濡目染之下它应该深谙国际关系的本质。欧洲几百年不断签约，战争却从未停止，边界更不断更替。所谓条约只是当时力量平衡的结果，一旦这种力量平衡失去，条约就会形同废纸。别说乌克兰这样的小国，就是强大如俄罗斯也一样：2001年小布什政府退出反导条约，2019年特朗普退出中导条约和开放天空条约，都和俄罗斯的安全有关，但也只能接受。

乌克兰的地理和历史条件决定了它的地缘政治风险和内部治理的难度非常高。一是东部有大量的俄罗斯族裔，处理不好和俄罗斯的关系就无法实现国内稳定。二是能源依赖俄罗斯，经济结构上更存在千丝万缕的关系，难以拆解。三是俄罗斯是它的邻国，双方边界近2000公里。四是西部亲西方，加入欧盟的意愿强烈。此外，俄罗斯和西方的关系高度不稳定，时而对立，时而合作。乌克兰往往成为双方争夺和利用的目标。

这样的内外形势，使得乌克兰的外交和内政几乎完全整合在一起，稍有不慎就会造成内外联动的危机。这对乌克兰政治精英国家治理水平提出了极高的要求。但显然，乌克兰精英根本无法胜任，以致于把乌克兰带入今天的灾难性境地。

首先，乌克兰和非常强大的俄罗斯保持睦邻关系特别是政治互信无疑是最重大的国家战略利益。这是乌克兰安全和主权完整的基本盘。乌克兰不管在什么情况下都不能挑战俄罗斯的底线。

但是2008年，乌克兰开始跨越红线，提出申请加入北约。但幸好2010年亲俄的亚努克维奇当选总统，并暂缓申请。但2014年由于欧盟苛刻条件而不得不推迟加入的决定引发了政治危机，亲欧的西部多个地区宣布独立，并最终使得亚努克维奇民选总统被“广场革命”推翻。这场内部危机迅速演变成外部危机：俄罗斯把克里米亚纳入版图。在这种情况下，乌克兰新政府决定将加入北约列为优先事项。2019年2月经过修宪，加入北约写入乌克兰宪法。至此，双方关系再也没有妥协的空间。

其次，1999年波兰和匈牙利加入北约， 2004年斯洛伐克、罗马尼亚加入北约，乌克兰开始和北约国家接壤并形成被环绕的态势。几乎在同一时刻，这些国家也加入欧盟。至此乌克兰出现了最不利的地缘政治形势：处于日益对立的两大强权夹缝中。特别是北约中的波兰长期和俄罗斯关系紧张，为此积极推动乌克兰向西方靠拢，试图把乌克兰打造成抗俄前沿。

在这种情况下，乌克兰的安全不仅取决于它和这两大阵营的关系，还取决于两大阵营之间的关系以及它如何在这两大阵营维持平衡。很不幸的是，由于北约一再东扩，这两大阵营走向对立，并都把乌克兰当作博弈的棋子，纷纷介入其内政。也就在这关键阶段，如果乌克兰先维持住和俄罗斯的基本盘，再通过积极加入欧盟来维持住和西方的关系，就可能出现冷战时南斯拉夫在两大阵营左右逢源的效果。其实在中美博弈的大背景下，许多国家面临类似的处境，但都能维持住平衡并从中获取红利。但很遗憾的是乌克兰政治精英缺乏这样的智慧。

最后要说的是，2021年美国抛弃自己扶持建立已经20年的阿富汗政府，乌克兰怎么会相信美国会支持它到底呢？结果不过三年，它就面临被美国抛弃的命运。

简单讲，在大国夹缝中的小国，如果大国关系对立，第一个受害的就是小国。如果大国关系改善，第一个被牺牲的也是小国。这都是国际关系史上一再上演的小国悲剧。乌克兰的命运只不过是历史的又一次重演。

一个国家要想确保自己的安全，主要有四个方式。一是本身就是大国，如联合国五常。二是小国或中等国家加入大国集团或者和大国战略利益捆绑， 比如加入北约的各个中小国家、获得中国和俄罗斯支持的朝鲜（中国历史上三次出兵保护朝鲜对抗外敌）、美国支持的日本和韩国、和俄罗斯建立密切关系的白俄罗斯。三是拥有核武器，比如印度、朝鲜。四是富裕同时军事上强大，比如瑞士。

从实力角度来看，乌克兰显然想选择加入更为强大的北约和更加富裕的欧盟以获得安全和经济发展。只是它的地理位置决定了这个选项根本行不通。这不仅仅是乌克兰面临的地缘政治困局，前南斯拉夫也曾在上世纪九十年代面临过，并付出极其巨大代价。

当时南斯拉夫为了捍卫国家统一而与身边最强大的北约对抗。它的传统盟友俄罗斯相距遥远而且正处于经济转型的阵痛期，无法施以援手。最终国家解体，塞尔维亚本身也受到重创。后来当科索沃于2008年宣布独立时，塞尔维亚就采用了完全不同的方式应对：承诺不使用武力、尽管欧盟和北约承认科索沃，塞尔维亚仍积极申请加入欧盟，还允许北约在科索沃驻军。要说屈辱程度，恐怕人类历史上也是不多见的。因为塞尔维亚已经意识到，它必须不惜一切代价与身边最强大的北约和欧盟维持和平，这是它国家安全的基本盘。哪怕对方在侵害它的主权和领土完整。否则作为一个内陆国家，仅欧盟封锁它就无法承受。俄乌冲突爆发后，塞尔维亚邀请俄罗斯外长访问，但周边北约国家封锁领空，访问就不得不取消。

需要指出的是，冷战时南斯拉夫是西方极力拉拢的对象，当西欧盟友接受马歇尔援助之时，美国也同样对待南斯拉夫。但是冷战结束，南斯拉夫不再有价值，西方立即极其冷酷的以军事手段支持它的解体。

今天的乌克兰如果能像塞尔维亚一样面对现象，它还可以保住残存的领土。否则被美国抛弃之后的命运还不知会如何。

面对变局 欧洲能清醒吗？

美国转瞬间对乌克兰立场的一百八十度转变，欧洲震惊之余对此的反应却完全不同：除了明确表示反对之外，还宣布了对俄罗斯的第十六轮制裁，并在冲突三周年之际齐聚基辅，表达强有力的支持。

从客观实力上讲，没有美国，欧洲都无法确保自身安全，更别说还要保护乌克兰。显然正如俄乌冲突爆发和今天剧变一样，欧洲的理解和应对都难说务实理性。

首先，美国抛弃乌克兰并不仅仅是放弃责任甩包袱这么简单，也不是特朗普本人是否亲俄的问题，更不是为了拉俄罗斯共同对抗中国。奉行单边主义的特朗普连自愿支持的欧洲盟友都不要，怎么还会要一个长期对立、并无多少政治互信、实力也远远逊于盟友、还需要支付更多回报的俄罗斯？

原因在于特朗普非常客观地承认一个简单的事实：这场冲突已经无法通过军事手段来结束。俄乌两国的实力完全不对称，西方只能援助又不能直接出兵，双方消耗战的状态将长期持续。三年的冲突对于美国和俄罗斯一样都已经成为第二个阿富汗。唯一的区别在于俄罗斯认为这是核心利益，美国则认为不是。所以特朗普的国防部长声称乌克兰不可能收复失地，也不可能加入北约虽然在欧洲眼里是道义上的背叛，但却是不争的事实。因为除非在战场上打败俄罗斯——这又是不可能的，否则这两条都不可能实现。只是欧洲连这个基本事实都不承认。

其次，美国既没有邀请也没有征求欧洲意见就在沙特与俄罗斯举行会谈，再一次表明俄乌冲突的本质是俄美对抗，也只有这两个国家达成妥协才能结束这场冲突。按说，欧洲是第三方，完全应该也能够处于最有利的地缘政治位置，在俄美之间游刃有余、左右逢源。但结果却是，冲突发生后，欧洲成为最大受损者。

现在当美国决定退出这场冲突时，本就不应该卷入的欧洲却要以独木难支的勇气应对。

欧洲之所以如此，一是价值观至上，无视大国博弈的现实，丧失了地缘政治思维，既不知如何进，也不知如何退。二是在于它在二战后以及冷战期间形成的安全上对美制度性依附。以美国为核心的北约，一方面能给欧洲提供安全保障，另一方面也能借此号令欧洲盟友配合自己的国家利益。这就是为什么欧洲尽管非常需要俄罗斯的能源，但并没有阻止北约东扩。等到俄美在乌克兰摊牌后，欧洲也没有能力左右逢源，反成最主要受害者。现在更被美国抛在一边，连参与谈判的资格都没有，还被美国要求承担乌克兰未来安全和重建的一切责任。

现在局势是美国要和俄罗斯握手言和，本就不是矛盾主要一方的欧洲反而要继续和俄罗斯对抗。应该说欧洲出于自身利益本就应该想尽办法避免这场冲突发生，冲突发生后也不应该卷入这场俄美对抗，现在俄美都要言和了，欧洲更应该借机迅速撤出，但现在却反其道而行之。毕竟乌克兰三十年前还是俄罗斯的一部分，它也不是欧盟和北约成员国，欧洲要这样做，地缘政治上是解释不通的。这就如同说当美国打阿富汗的时候，欧洲以盟友身份参与，当美国退出时，欧洲依然要继续打下去一样。

当然欧洲认为这场冲突事关最高利益安全，自己无法置身事外。可是欧洲冲突前后的做法并没有获得安全。

第三，美国抛开乌克兰和欧洲，单独和俄罗斯会谈，表明欧美的战略利益已经不同，美国已经无视欧洲的作用和价值。

在美国看来，中国是最大的挑战和威胁，但和中国相距遥远而且不再谋取霸权的欧洲却并不这样认为，而是视为伙伴、竞争者和对手，或者叫竞争性伙伴。问题在于只是美国清醒地认识到这一点。

美国过去靠得住，是因为它和欧洲的战略利益高度一致，现在实力相对下降的美国要在全球收缩，同时把有限的资源转向亚洲。即使没有特朗普，美国也会做出类似选择。抛弃阿富汗就是两党一致做出的，那时欧洲和阿富汗政府也没能坐上谈判桌，而是美国和塔利班直接谈判的结果。今天不过是阿富汗战争的翻版。可以说美国从奥巴马时代就开始进行战略转移，欧洲则还处于冷战时的历史惯性。所以也不难理解，欧洲一直在不同程度地配合美国的对华遏制战略。美国提出针对中国的印太战略，欧洲也跟风追随。在事关中国核心利益的台湾问题上也是一再升级。

这也是为什么即使拜登时期，也对欧洲的利益多有损害，特朗普时代只不过更加没有底线而已。号称坚如磐石的大西洋联盟面临崩塌。

欧洲要摆脱困境，避免再蹈城门失火的覆辙，需要做到四点：

一是要认识到今天的世界已经变了，大国博弈和地缘政治重新成为主流。欧洲必须加速实现战略自主，安全要靠自己。

二是欧美共同战略利益已经不复存在，双方差异巨大。美国已经不可能为了欧洲利益而牺牲自己。欧洲也需要优先考虑自己的利益了。

三是俄罗斯是搬不走的邻居，处理不好和它的关系，欧洲也不会有和平和稳定。它需要创造出能够把欧洲所有国家纳入进来的维持和平的新机制。

四是联手中国。中欧相隔遥远，既没有地缘政治张力，双方在多极化、全球治理方面还有战略利益。当欧洲被美国抛在一边的时候，也是中国明确提出欧洲应该坐上谈判桌。尤其是当欧洲失去俄罗斯之后，中国就成了它唯一可以借力的大国。

然而目前来看，困境中的欧洲还在原地徘徊，毫无方向。正如美国智库战略与国际研究中心学者柏格曼（Bergmann）所评论的：“欧洲人宛如头发着火般四处乱窜。”只是欧洲还有多少时间可以浪费？