高健：俄乌冲突可以给北约续命吗？

正如法国总统马克龙所言，对于北约这个已经濒临“脑死亡”的冷战时期的政治产物而言，俄乌冲突无疑是一次极富刺激的“电击”。本次布鲁塞尔北约峰会，北约又一次象征性地“团结”在美国主导的西方民主阵营的旗帜下，将俄罗斯确定为这一组织的共同敌人。俄乌冲突彻底搅乱了欧盟与俄罗斯构建良性互动的双边关系的局面，又一次将整个欧洲置于冲突与战争的漩涡之中。北约通过贩卖战争获得的脆弱的合法性，果真具有坚实的现实基础与可持续性吗？

在新近发布的北约布鲁塞尔峰会《联合申明》中，北约一再强调要致力于地区的和平发展与安全稳定。然而，作为冷战时期美苏争霸的时代产物，北约的合法地位恰恰无法脱离地区政治矛盾与军事斗争。作为俄乌冲突的制造者与幕后推手，美国主导的北约真正需要的是一个处于紧张对立中的俄欧关系。在冷战后早期阶段，抱着向西方国家靠拢的积极诚意，俄罗斯一度曾经积极尝试加入北约。也许是作为一种对前苏联配合“和平演变”的奖赏，美国老布什政府也曾经承诺北约不会向东扩张一英寸。然而，30年后的今天，正是由于北约数次东扩，挑动乌克兰加入北约的欲望，深深刺激了俄罗斯的领土安全意识，也直接导致了本次俄乌冲突。必须指出，作为冷战时期意识形态的产物，北约能够延续至今，得益于欧洲三十年来此起彼伏的地缘政治危机。美国能够始终主导欧洲军事安全机制的秘诀在于它能够有效利用欧陆国家内部与国家之间的历史积怨与现实利益冲突。在这一意义上，本次俄乌冲突只是美国故技重施的表演而已。

进入新世纪以来，世界政治格局向多极化方向发展的趋势日益明显，北约固有的身份危机绝不会因为本次俄乌冲突得到真正解决。同样作为北约成员国，德国与法国等欧洲主要国家在俄乌冲突上的立场与美国的利益诉求果真一致吗？与以往欧洲历次安全危机有所不同的是，欧盟将成为俄乌冲突最大的牺牲者，将不得不吞下为俄乌冲突直接埋单的苦果。俄罗斯是欧洲不可替代的石油与天然气供应者，乌克兰为欧洲与世界提供了不可或缺的农产品。面对日益迫近的通货膨胀，欧盟国家果真做好了应对社会危机的准备了吗？欧盟果真愿意放弃早已铺设完成的北溪二号，为美国远道而来的昂贵能源埋单吗？如果俄乌冲突持续下去，谁将为大量的乌克兰难民提供人道主义援助？因此，随着俄乌冲突进一步发展，一旦欧盟主要国家的民意发生变化，美欧之间的内部矛盾将不可避免地呈现出来。貌似铁板一块的北约组织，将迎来俄乌冲突爆发以来的真正考验。

一个令人困惑的问题是，美国主导的北约果真可以牢牢掌控未来欧洲的发展方向吗？表面看来，美国成功挑动了俄乌冲突，达到了进一步掌控欧洲的战略目的，北约再一次成为维系欧洲安全机制的根本保障。然而，欧盟主要国家谋求欧洲安全机制主导权的发展趋势不会改变。应该看到，美国竭尽全力阻挠俄欧改善双边关系的外交策略是一以贯之的，这是美国能够立足欧洲不可或缺的战略支点。然而，就未来欧洲的发展而言，改善与重要邻国俄罗斯的双边关系，无论从国家战略层面还是现实利益层面，都是符合欧盟的根本利益的。过去几年，欧盟在这一方向上做出了实质的努力，并且有意识地规划欧盟主导的欧洲安全机制。俄乌冲突在短时间内会迟滞欧盟追求自主安全机制的步伐，但是，以德国为代表的欧盟主要国家充分认识到，欧盟在未来必须将欧洲安全机制牢牢掌握在自己的手中。虽然建立欧洲军依然是一个需要深入探讨的主题，但是，本次俄乌冲突的确从根本上刺激并且强化了欧盟追求军事安全自主权的愿望。无论俄乌冲突以怎样的方式结束，北约在未来欧洲的角色转换势在必行，这只是一个时间问题。

本质而言，美国主导的北约是冷战时期的产物。作为美国霸权在欧洲的象征，北约的生死存亡与美国世界霸权的增强与衰落是基本同步的。进入21世纪以来，深陷阿富汗战争与伊拉克战争的美国国力相对衰弱，北约的合法性地位也随之受到了广泛的质疑。俄乌战争发展到今天，为了维系在欧洲事务中的话语权，美国不惜与中东地区与拉美地区等一度相互敌视的国家缓和关系，以求换取一个极为脆弱的合围俄罗斯的外交局面。然而，在一个日益以合作共赢为主导的国际格局中，以追求美国霸权地位为根本目的的美式冷战思维注定是一种短视的战略格局。在这一意义上，站在历史错误的一边的北约，其合法性该如何保证呢？

原文2022年3月29日首发于香港《大公报》

NATO legitimacy further questioned as Ukraine crisis drags on

During the recent NATO summit in Brussels, the organization once again symbolically "united" under the banner of the US-led "Western democratic bloc" and defined Russia as the common enemy of members of NATO.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has inhibited the EU and Russia from creating a bilateral relationship with healthy interactions. The question is, does NATO's fragile legitimacy based on warmongering truly have any realistic basis or sustainability?

NATO, under the leadership of Washington, is the real initiator and driving force behind the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, because what the US really needs is tense and conflicting Russia-Europe relations. It is NATO's eastward expansion that has triggered Ukraine's desire to join NATO and greatly triggered Russia's concerns over territorial security, which directly led to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict. Geopolitical crises in Europe over the past three decades have contributed to the long existence of NATO, a product of Cold War ideology. Washington can consistently lead the European security mechanism, and the secret behind it lies in the US' ability to effectively take advantage of past grudges and conflicts of interests both within and between European countries. In this sense, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is just another trick where the US uses its same old tricks again.

However, the question is, do major European countries like Germany and France - also NATO members - really hold a stance over the Russian-Ukrainian conflict that is in line with Washington's interests? Unlike the past security crises in Europe, the EU will become the biggest victim of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It will have to bear the brunt of the conflict. Therefore, as the Ukraine crisis develops, the differences between the US and Europe will become inevitable once the public opinion in major EU countries changes. At that time, NATO, which seems to be united, will be put to the real test.

Can the US-led NATO really have a firm grip on the future direction of Europe's development? On the surface, the US has successfully provoked the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and achieved its strategic goal of further controlling Europe. NATO has once again become the fundamental guarantee for maintaining European security. However, that major EU countries seeking dominance in the European security mechanism will not change.

It should be noted that the US has always tried its best to obstruct Russia and Europe from improving relations. This is an indispensable strategic pillar for the US to gain a foothold in Europe. However, improving bilateral relations with Russia, an important neighbor, is in the fundamental interests of the EU, both strategically and in terms of practical interests.

In the past few years, the EU has made substantial efforts in this direction and has consciously planned an EU-led European security mechanism. The Russia-Ukraine conflict will delay the EU's pursuit of an independent security mechanism in a short period of time. However, the major EU countries represented by Germany fully realize that the EU must firmly grasp the European security mechanism in its own hands. Although the establishment of a European army is still a topic that needs to be discussed in depth, the current Russia-Ukraine conflict has indeed fundamentally stimulated and strengthened the EU's desire to pursue military security autonomy.

Fundamentally, the US-led NATO is a product of the Cold War. As a symbol of American hegemony in Europe, NATO is basically synchronized with American global hegemony.  

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the national strength of the US, which is deeply involved in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been relatively weakened, and the legitimacy of NATO has also been widely questioned. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict evolves, in order to maintain its right to speak on European affairs, the US did not hesitate to ease relations with some countries in the Middle East and Latin America, which they see as hostile, in exchange for a diplomatic situation of encircling Russia. 

In an international architecture increasingly dominated by win-win cooperation, the US Cold War mentality with the fundamental purpose of pursuing US hegemony is destined to be a short-sighted strategic pattern. In this sense, how can NATO, which stands on the wrong side of history, guarantee its own legitimacy?

The author is a scholar at Shanghai International Studies University and a China Forum Expert.

英文版3月27日首发于《环球时报》