林德宜：俄乌战争的两赢家三输家

“俄乌冲突本不该发生，如果我是总统，它就不会发生。”——特朗普2022年9月于Truth Social媒体平台上如此表述。

随著俄乌战争跌跌撞撞进入尾声，来自不同阵营的分析人士正评估这场争夺欧洲权力与主导地位的战争中，谁是赢家谁是输家。

目前看来，作为战后协议基础的《28点和平方案》让两者获利最明显——俄罗斯与美国。

对这一方案中最终可能写入乌俄协议的条款进行分析，可得出这场欧洲近代史上最致命战争中，五大关键参与者的潜在得失清单。

乌克兰

对乌克兰而言，停火将意味著在克里米亚、顿涅茨克、卢甘斯克及其他俄军占领地区失去主权。其军力将被限定在仍未敲定的规模内，且不得有外国军队驻扎其境内。乌克兰也将事实上被禁止加入北约，而这正是引爆战争的关键诱因之一。

在较为正面的部分，乌克兰将获得重建资金的赔偿，该基金部分来自被冻结的1000亿美元／4112亿令吉俄罗斯资产——但俄罗斯已拒绝这项建议，并称这等同于“盗窃”。

无论赔偿规模多大，都无法弥补国家被毁后的真实代价：数十万军民伤亡、超过1100万人流离失所、经济与基础设施损毁达数千亿美元。这些沉重的代价将由本世代与未来乌克兰人共同承担。

欧盟

对欧盟，则是一场发生在家门口的毁灭性战争结束，却没有换来领土扩张或安全提升。其以恐吓式、战争导向的政策并未对俄罗斯造成战略优势，反而加深欧盟内部裂痕，削弱凝聚力。

在特朗普施压下被迫大幅增加防务预算的欧盟国家，即便加码国防，也不太可能因此更安全，因为俄罗斯拥有核武。欧洲随之爆发的军备竞赛将给整个大陆民众带来更高的经济和社会成本，同时也增加核冲突可能性。

北大西洋公约组织（NATO）

尽管成功避免直接与俄罗斯交战，北约却见证其在乌克兰、格鲁吉亚及其他潜在成员国的扩张计划受挫。同样重要的是，北约作为一个强大且具威信的政治军事联盟，其自诩的维和原则如今显得虚伪与空洞。

北约32国的军力规模与军费开支远超俄罗斯，但其军事、工业与财政资源都未能为乌克兰带来速胜或迟胜。随著乌克兰军事败势几乎无可避免，北约内部正出现更大的政治混乱与疑问：在多极世界的今天，北约是否仍然具有存在意义？

俄罗斯

俄乌战争给俄罗斯带来巨额成本，估计经济代价超过2000亿美元／8225亿令吉，同时付出了惨重的人命代价。

然而，普京最核心的战略目标——阻止北约向俄罗斯扩张——已经达成。乌克兰正走向“中立化”与“非军事化”。此外，俄方几乎可以肯定在2022年经公投“加入俄罗斯联邦”的原乌克兰领土——顿涅茨克、卢甘斯克、扎波罗热与赫尔松——将被承认。

经济方面，随著制裁最终解除，俄罗斯将重新融入全球经济。

也许最具深远意义的是，俄罗斯的国际形象有望恢复为一个“受尊重的大国”。战争终局若能被塑造成“确保国家利益的胜利”，必将进一步提升克里姆林宫与普京在国内外的声望。

美国

拜登时代的美国外交以领导北约、为乌克兰提供长期军事与财政支持为核心，美国因此成为乌克兰最大的武器与援助来源，其名义目标是捍卫乌克兰主权与领土完整。

随著特朗普回归白宫，他推动的欧洲外交重组——最终促成和平协议——被认为将中止美国在乌克兰的军事与财政投入，减轻美国的资源消耗，并重新优先落实“美国优先”外交路线。

外界归纳出的美国主要收益包括：

重建利益与金融收益：和平方案中有条款建议，美国可从乌克兰重建投资中获得50%的利润，美国企业更可能获得乌克兰天然资源的开采权，尤其是稀土的战略资源。

逼盟友承担更大责任：通过“美国卖武器给北约国家，再由这些国家转交乌克兰”的方式，特朗普可宣称自己振兴美国军工产业。

展示外交影响力：通过主导美俄和平进程，特朗普将能强调美国在全球政治中的主导角色。

俄罗斯重新融入全球经济的潜能：这不仅有利于美国商界，甚至可能让俄罗斯成为美国对抗中国的潜在伙伴——美国领导人将中国视为美国在世界上的生存竞争对手。

地缘政治考量外

乌俄双方战损（死伤合计）可能超过100万人，分析人士在讨论战争是否可避免时，必将关注这些数字。

除了检视“战争是否不可避免”——如果特朗普说得没错，这场战争本不该发生——更应质问的是：为何这场屠杀被允许持续这么久？

西方主要政治领袖——（美国）拜登、（英国）鲍里斯约翰逊、苏纳克、斯塔默、（法国）马克龙、（德国）梅尔茨等——在推动战争、延长战事上的作用，是否让他们手上的鲜血不亚于俄乌领导人？这一疑问并非毫无根据。

对于质疑政府宣传、警惕主流媒体叙事的人，这个问题应是首要思考。

林德宜《俄乌战争的两赢家三输家》原文：Ukraine War: Two Winners, Three Losers

"The Ukrainian conflict should never have happened, and would not have happened if I were President." Donald Trump on Truth Social. September 2022 

As the war in Ukraine stumbles into its end game, analysts from contesting sides will be evaluating the wins and losses in the struggle for power and dominance among Europe’s nations.

For now, the 28 point peace plan currently providing the basis of a post war settlement will have two winners - Russia and the United States.

An examination of the points likely to emerge from the final Ukraine - Russia agreement provides the following list of potential gains and losses for the 5 key players in what has been amongst the deadliest wars in European history.

Ukraine

For Ukraine, the end of active hostilities is likely to result in a loss of territorial sovereignty in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and other Russian occupied areas. Its military is to be capped at an yet unresolved number and no foreign troops are to be stationed on its soil. There will effectively be a ban on NATO membership. This was one of the main catalysts of the war.

On the positive side, Ukraine will receive reparations primarily through a reconstruction fund financed in part by $100 billion in frozen Russian assets - a proposal which Russia has rejected as amounting to “theft”.

Whatever the amount of reparations and resources poured into reconstruction can never make up for the devastating combination of hundreds of thousands of military and civilian casualties, massive displacement of over 11 million people, and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic and infrastructure damage that the present generation and future Ukrainians have to bear.

European Union (EU)

For the EU, the end of a devastating war on its doorstep has brought no territorial gain or enhanced security. Its war oriented and fear mongering policies have not produced any advantage against Russia. Rather it has deepened internal divisions within the EU and undermined cohesion.

Forced by Trump to drastically increase their defence budgets, EU member nations will find whatever additional funding provided is unlikely to ensure greater security against Russia's nuclear weaponry. An arms race in Europe will result in greater losses for the continent's people due to significant economic and social costs. It will also make the prospect of a nuclear conflict in Europe more likely.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Whilst avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia, NATO has seen its expansion plans in Ukraine, Georgia and other potential countries from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), thwarted. Just as important is its loss of prestige and standing as a powerful and potent political military alliance with its professed peace keeping principles now
seen as meaningless or hypocritical.

NATO’s 32 member countries have a combined military forces and defense spending far exceeding that of Russia. But its military resources and industrial capacity as well as financial resources have not been able to provide a quick or delayed victory.

As Ukraine’s military defeat is now almost inevitable, the end of war is also seeing greater internal political disarray and coherence, and questions about the relevance of NATO within Europe and in a multipolar world order.

Russia

The war in Ukraine has been enormously costly for Russia, with estimates suggesting the direct economic cost is over $200 billion. Russia has also suffered a devastating human toll.

However, Putin's primary strategic objective to block NATO expansion into Russia's eastern flank has been successful. Ukraine is now in the process of being neutralized and demilitarised. At the same time, it is highly probable that the territorial gains provided by the referendum in the regions that were formerly part of Ukraine - Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson voted overwhelmingly to formally join the Russian Federation in 2022 - will be recognised.

Also significant are the likely economic outcomes. With the lifting of sanctions, Russia will see its reintegration into the global economy take place.

Perhaps most significant is that it will restore Russia's image as a major and respected global power. The framing of the war's conclusion as a triumph that has secured Russia's national interest will undoubtedly enhance the Kremlin’s and Putin's domestic and international prestige and standing.

United States

U.S. policy during Biden's presidency was defined by its leadership of NATO and the provision of sustained military and financial support for Ukraine's defense. The mission ostensibly to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity saw the U.S. become Ukraine's largest military backer.

With Trump replacing Biden, it is claimed that Trump’s realignment of American foreign policy in Europe - culminating with the peace agreement plan - will end U.S. financial and military involvement in Ukraine's war, reduce the drain on U.S. resources, and prioritize an "America First" foreign policy approach.

Other key gains claimed include:

● Financial benefits and reconstruction involvement: The proposed peace plan includes provisions where the U.S. would receive 50% of the profits from investments in Ukraine's reconstruction. There is also the potential for U.S. companies to gain
access to Ukraine's natural resources, including critical rare-earth elements.

● Leveraging alliances for greater European contribution: By conditioning U.S. support and pushing a policy where the U.S. sells weapons to NATO allies who then pass them to Ukraine, Trump can claim to benefit U.S. industry. 

● Demonstrating diplomatic leverage/power: By pursuing a separate U.S.- Russia peace process, Trump can claim to demonstrate U.S. power

● Potential of Russian reintegration: A core part of the proposed plan involves the potential reintegration of Russia into the global economy. This will benefit U.S. business interests. A big unknown is the potential of Russia as an ally against China
which US leaders see as America's existential rival in the world.

Beyond the Calculus of Geopolitics

The scale of recent combined military casualties (killed and wounded) for Ukraine and Russia may run to over a million. This is a casualty count that analysts will be focusing on while debating whether the war was preventable or avoidable.

Besides questioning its inevitability - if President Trump is right, this war should never have taken place - analysts should also be focusing on how or why the combat and its horrific toll was permitted to go on for so long.

The possibility that Western leaders and their decision making staff - Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Mertz and others instrumental in encouraging the war and its prolongation - have as much, if not more blood on their hands as their Russian and Ukrainian counterparts, is not as far fetched as it may appear to be.

This question should be a fundamental concern for all skeptical of the propaganda of government explanations, and the supportive narratives in the mainstream media.