林德宜：欧洲领袖并不想让俄乌战争结束

或许今年最令人感到虚伪的一幕，是7位欧洲领导人急忙赶往华盛顿，陪同乌克兰总统泽连斯基与美国总统特朗普会晤。就在此前，特朗普才与俄罗斯总统普京举行峰会，尝试结束俄乌战争。

与会的欧洲领袖包括：英国首相斯塔默、意大利总理梅洛尼、法国总统马克龙、德国总理梅尔兹、芬兰总统斯图布、欧盟主席冯德莱恩以及北约秘书长吕特。

会后的记者会上，欧洲领导人纷纷上演政治作秀，以抢眼言辞表态支持“和平解决俄乌战争”。

但从现场影像来看，他们的公开辞令表面上虽是支持乌克兰，实际上却反映出更深层的自利目标，而非真心或务实地致力于结束冲突。

与一心想结束这场血腥而旷日持久战争的特朗普不同，欧盟与英国的政策一贯乃至至今，仍是紧抓“逼使莫斯科——也就是普京——彻底屈服”的立场，即便这意味著将阻碍任何特朗普鼓励泽连斯基作出的让步。

西欧那种“战斗到最后一个乌克兰人”的坚持，早在2024年欧洲议会争辩中就已表露无遗。当时，冯德莱恩严词批评匈牙利总理欧尔班，因为后者主张立即停火，并认为协议中可能需要对俄罗斯作出某些让步。欧尔班的立场出自现实考量：这场战争已成为欧洲在军事与经济上的沉重负担，优先任务应是止战，即便结局对乌克兰并不完美。欧尔班是少数欧洲领导人中，最坚定主张“持久和平”的人之一。

英国在俄乌战争中“好战角色”

追踪俄乌战争起源和早期发展的分析人士指出，英国政府有投机性地鼓动这场战争，尽管英国不是欧洲大陆国家，也没有受到俄罗斯在乌克兰战争的任何威胁。

英国前首相约翰逊是最早、最积极的战争鼓吹者之一，他在任期内多次访问乌克兰首都基辅。约翰逊领导英国走在其他欧洲国家前头，率先提供攻击性武器，并力劝泽连斯基投入一场漫长的消耗战。英国国内的批评者指责约翰逊借此战争挽救自己因“派对门丑闻”（新冠疫情时，英国政府与保守党官员举行派对及其他聚会所造成的一项政治丑闻）而破败的政治形象，并试图借此建立政治遗产。

其继任者苏纳克更进一步推高了约翰逊时期的政策，可以说手上染上了更多鲜血。在苏纳克任内，英国成为第一个承诺并提供西方主战坦克与长程精准打击导弹的国家，这是明显的军事升级。这些武器使乌克兰能深入打击俄罗斯后方，从而延长并扩大了战事。

如今的首相斯塔默虽然领导的是工党政府，但仍延续（与保守党前任们一样）的信念：认为让俄罗斯战败符合英国政党与国家利益，因为这将为英国带来类似1990年代苏联解体后“淘金潮”般的地缘政治与经济红利。

这种自利虚伪的“让英国再次伟大”假设——靠别国的崩溃牟利——虽然很少被英国领导人和媒体公开谈论，但核心逻辑在于：若俄罗斯战败，将复制苏联解体时的剧本——当时俄国寡头与既得利益者因恐惧动荡与财产被没收，急忙将资金转移出境。因此，俄罗斯若崩溃或普京被推翻，英国及西欧将可收割庞大的政治与经济利益。

特朗普拒绝西欧战争战略

然而，对于欧盟与英国那套“战斗到最后一个乌克兰人”的强硬政策，特朗普已明确拒绝。他反而采纳了匈牙利总统的观点：若任何和平方案都包含欧盟的“最大化要求”——包括让北约继续向乌克兰扩张——只会令冲突拖延。

大多数独立分析者也同意特朗普的立场：外交解决——即便是不完美的方案——才是唯一能拯救生命、防止进一步破坏的途径。而欧盟与英国的“要么全有，要么全无”方案，却让这一切无法实现。更重要的是，在现有战况下，欧盟坚持的“乌克兰领土的完整”是不切实际的。

欧洲领导人透过西方媒体高调宣示的立场，需要被重新审视。他们的言语或许充满“同情”与“和平”的辞藻，但实际政策却是由权力、安全、内部政治与自利考量所驱动。

欧洲列强对外展现与乌克兰“团结一致”的姿态，其实更多是一种战略工具，用来确保他们自己的利益，并在国际舞台与国内舆论中塑造有利形象。这并不是出于对乌克兰与乌克兰人民真正的关怀。

林德宜《欧洲领袖并不想让俄乌战争结束》原文：European Leaders Do Not Want An End To Ukraine War

Perhaps the most cynicism producing event of the year was the rush by seven European leaders to Washington to lend support to President Volodymyr Zelensky for his meeting with President Donald Trump, following the latter’s summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to end the war in Ukraine.

European leaders joining the meeting included United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, President of the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

During the press conference after the meeting, European leader after leader engaged in opportunistic posturing and public attention grabbing speeches to proclaim their support for a peace settlement.

The live event recording suggests that their public rhetoric, while supportive of Ukraine, in reality reflects underlying self-interested goals rather than an altruistic or pragmatic commitment to helping resolve the conflict.

Unlike President Trump who is determined to bring about an end to the bloody and prolonged war, the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom) policy has been, and continues to be, fixated on bringing about Moscow’s, that is, Putin's complete capitulation even if it means thwarting any concessions that Zelensky is being encouraged to make by Trump.

The Western European insistence on “fighting to the last Ukrainian” can be clearly discerned during the 2024 clash in the EU parliament when European Commission senior official Ursula Leyen criticized Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for calling for an immediate ceasefire and for proposing that a deal might involve some concessions to Russia. Orban’s position was based on the reality that the war is a military and economic drain on Europe and that the priority should be to stop the fighting, even if it means a less than ideal outcome for Ukraine. Amongst European leaders he has been the outstanding advocate of a settlement that can produce a lasting and durable peace (see https://www.dawn.com/news/1844125)

UK Role As A War Monger In Ukraine

Analysts following the war origins and development during its early stages have noted similar opportunistic encouragement of the war by the UK government, although the UK is not a continental European nation and is not being threatened in any way by Russia's war in Ukraine.

Boris Johnson has been the most prominent early cheerleader for the war visiting Kyiv multiple times during his tenure. Pushing the UK to be consistently ahead of other European nations in supplying offensive weaponry and in urging Zelensky to commit his country to a long, grinding war of attrition, Johnson’s domestic critics have accused him of using the war to resurrect his tattered political image and to solidify a legacy after the “partygate scandal”. (See https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-boris-johnson-partygate-scandal-2023-06-15/ )

His successor, Rishi Sunak intensified the UK's policy under Johnson, and can be said to have even more blood on his hands. Under him, the UK was the first country to pledge and provide Western main battle tanks and long-range precision strike missiles which were significant escalations in capability. By providing weapons that enabled Ukraine to strike deep behind Russian lines Sunak encouraged a prolonged and expanded conflict.

Keith Starmar, although leading a Labour party government, has continued (as with his Conservative party counterparts) to believe that it is in the interest of his party and the country to invest strongly in a Russian defeat which would engineer a geopolitical and economic outcome for Britain similar to the post-Soviet "gold rush" of the 1990s.

The core of this cynical “make Britain great again” hypothesis - making a killing from a collapse - seldom publicly discussed by UK leaders and British media, sees a strategic economic opportunity in a Russian defeat, alongside the geopolitical gains. The model is the chaotic breakup of the Soviet Union which led to a massive capital flight as Russian oligarchs and well-connected businessmen, fearing instability and seizure of assets, scrambled to get their wealth out of the collapsing state. British and other Western European political and economic interests are hoping to reap a bonanza should Russia collapse or Putin be overthrown as an outcome of the war's end.

Trump Rebuffs Western European War Strategy

Unfortunately for the EU and UK agitators of the “fighting to the last Ukrainian” strategy, Trump has rejected their hardline policies. Instead he has adopted the Hungarian President’s argument that any peace plan that contains the EU’s maximum demands including on NATO’s further expansion into Ukraine is only prolonging the conflict.

Most independent analysts agree with Trump that a diplomatic solution, even an imperfect one, is the only way to save lives and prevent further destruction. The EU’s and UK’s "all or nothing" approach prevents this. More importantly, the EU's insistence on full territorial integrity is unrealistic, given the military situation on the ground. 

European leaders' statements trumpeted by Western media should be reassessed for their actions beyond the immediate press conference. While their words may be about compassion and peace, their policies are shaped by opportunistic considerations of power, security, domestic politics and self interest. 

The public display of a united front with Ukraine can be seen as a strategic tool to secure their own interests, and present a favorable image to both international partners and domestic audiences. It is not because they have the best interests of Ukraine and Ukrainians at heart.