俄羅斯是歐洲各國最危險的鄰居

Russia is both a tragedy and a menace. In the Financial Times this week Sergey Karaganov offered an arresting insight into the blend of self-pity and braggadocio currently at work in Moscow. It is as depressing as it is disturbing. Western policy makers seem to believe the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (known as Isis) is the greater danger. But Russia is the nuclear-armed rump of a former superpower and, ruled by an amoral autocrat, it frightens me even more. For Europe and, I believe, the US, there is no greater foreign policy question than how to deal with today’s Russia.

俄羅斯既是一場悲劇，也是一個威脅。近日的英國《金融時報》上，謝爾蓋•卡拉加諾夫(Sergey Karaganov)發表了一篇引人入勝的文章，深刻闡述了莫斯科相互交織的自憐與自負情緒。文中的內容既讓人沮喪，也讓人不安。西方政策制定者似乎相信“伊拉克與黎凡特伊斯蘭國”(ISIS)的危險性更大。但前身是超級大國、擁有核武器、由一個無道德感的獨裁者統治的俄羅斯更讓我恐懼。對歐洲來說，如何應對當今的俄羅斯是最大的外交政策難題，在我看來對美國來說也是如此。

The west “proclaimed itself victor in the cold war”, according to Mr Karaganov. Maybe the origin of the tragedy can be found in this remark. The west did not just proclaim itself victor; it was the victor. A defensive alliance defeated the Soviet Union because it offered a better way of life. That is why so many wanted to escape the Soviet prison, including many once-optimistic Russians.

卡拉加諾夫表示，西方“宣告自己是冷戰(Cold War)的勝者”。也許我們能從這句話裏找到悲劇的根源。西方不僅僅宣告自己是勝者；西方那時也的確是勝者。西方的防務同盟打敗了蘇聯(Soviet Union)，因爲它提供了更好的生活方式。這也是爲什麼那麼多人都想要逃離蘇聯的牢籠，包括許多一度樂觀的俄羅斯人。

Yet President Vladimir Putin, the latest in a long line of Russian autocrats, has stated, instead: “The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” It was, in fact, an opportunity, one that many in central and eastern Europe seized with both hands. The transition to a new way of life proved unavoidably difficult. The world they now inhabit is highly imperfect. But they have mostly joined the world of civilised modernity. What does this mean? It means intellectual and economic freedom. It means the right to engage freely in public life. It means governments subject to the rule of law and accountable to their people.

然而，俄羅斯長長的獨裁者名單上最新的一位，俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)卻宣稱：“蘇聯解體是那個世紀的重大地緣政治災難。”事實上，蘇聯解體是許多中歐和東歐人全力抓住的機會。向新的生活方式過渡存在困難是難免的。他們現在所處的世界極爲不完美。但他們基本上加入了文明和現代的世界。這是什麼意思？意思是人們思想和經濟自由，擁有自由參與公共生活的權利，政府受法治約束，向人民負責。

The west has too often failed to live up to these ideals. But they remain beacons. In the early 1990s they were beacons to many Russians. As a great admirer of Russian culture and Russian courage, I hoped, fondly perhaps, that the country would find a way through the debris of its collapsed ideology, state and empire. I knew it would be difficult. I wanted Russia to choose western values, however, not just for our sake but also for its own. The alternative of continuing the cycle of despotism was too depressing.

很多時候西方沒能實現這些理想。但這些理想依然是指明燈。在20世紀90年代初，這些理想也是很多俄羅斯人心中的指明燈。作爲一個非常讚賞俄羅斯文化和俄羅斯人勇氣的人，我（也許是一廂情願地）希望這個國家能夠從崩塌的意識形態、國家和帝國的廢墟中找到一條出路。我知道這很困難。我希望俄羅斯選擇西方價值觀，並不只是爲了我們，也是爲了俄羅斯本身。否則俄羅斯繼續處在循環往復的專制統治下太令人沮喪了。

With the selection of Mr Putin, a former KGB colonel, as his successor, Boris Yeltsin delivered that outcome. The president may, for now, be a popular despot. But a despot he is. He is also heir to the project of Yuri Andropov, former KGB head and Soviet leader, for a modernised autocracy. As a loyal servant of the state, he believes results alone matter. Lies are just another tool of statecraft. Only the wilfully blind could fail to see that evident truth in recent months.

鮑里斯•葉利欽(Boris Yeltsin)選擇前克格勃(KGB)上校普京作爲繼任者，促成了這個結果。普京現在來看或許是個受歡迎的專制者。但他依然是專制者。他同時也繼承了前克格勃和蘇聯領導人尤里•安德羅波夫(Yuri Andropov)建立現代化獨裁政體的計劃。作爲國家的忠實僕人，普京相信結果是唯一重要的事物。謊言只不過是另一種治國之術。只有故意視而不見的人才看不到最近數月展露出的顯而易見的真實。

The west is partly responsible for this tragic outcome. It failed to offer the support Russia needed quickly enough in the early 1990s. Instead it focused, ludicrously, on who would pay the Soviet debt. It acquiesced in the larceny of Russian wealth for the benefit of a few.

西方對這個悲劇性的結果負有部分責任。西方沒能以足夠快的速度在20世紀90年代早期提供俄羅斯所需的支持。相反，西方採取了荒謬的行動，糾結於誰來償還蘇聯的債務。爲了少數人的利益，西方還默許了竊取俄羅斯財富的行爲。

But more important was the refusal of Russia’s elite to address the reasons for the collapse, then to start afresh. Only by confronting the reality of Stalin’s monstrous machinery of oppression and lies could they build something new.

但更重要的是，俄羅斯的精英拒絕直面蘇聯解體的原因並從頭開始。只有正視斯大林(Stalin)駭人聽聞的壓迫和謊言體系，他們才能建立一些全新的東西。

The nation that has emerged was always the likely outcome. It sees itself as surrounded by enemies. Foreign relations are zero sum; success for others is a failure for Russia. In this view, a prosperous and democratic Ukraine, if achieved (a remote possibility, I agree), is a nightmare. For Moscow’s elites preventing that is, as Mr Karaganov puts it, “a struggle to stop others expanding their sphere of control into territories they believe are vital to Russia’s survival”. And who is it that, allegedly, threatens Russia’s survival? It is a west that is “weaker than many imagine”. Such a feeble west plays the part of bogeyman.

唯一可能的結果永遠是現在出現的這個國家。它認爲自己被敵人包圍。對外關係是零和遊戲；其他人的成功就是俄羅斯的失敗。按照這種觀點，烏克蘭如果能成爲一個繁榮和民主的國家（我也認爲其希望渺茫），對俄羅斯來說是一個噩夢。如卡拉加諾夫所言，對俄羅斯精英來說，阻止這一點“是一場鬥爭，爲的是阻止他人將勢力範圍擴展到他們心目中對俄羅斯的存續至關重要的區域”。那麼在他們眼中，誰在威脅俄羅斯的存續？是“比許多人想象中更弱”的西方。這樣一個孱弱的西方扮演着駭人的妖怪。

Viewed from Moscow, western policy is the politics of Versailles. In fact, the western position is based on two simple principles: first, a country is entitled to make its own choices; second, borders may not be changed by force. Russia rejects both of them. It is because its former satellites and dependencies were rightly confident that Russia would not accept these principles that they have been so keen to join Nato. The military alliance did not have to force them to join. They begged to do so. Maybe they understand how broad is Russia’s understanding of its “vital interest” and how ruthless it is in protecting them.

從莫斯科的觀點來看，西方的政策屬於凡爾賽政治。實際上，西方的立場基於兩條簡單的原則：首先，一個國家有權做出自己的抉擇；其次，邊界不應靠武力改變。這兩條原則俄羅斯都拒絕接受。俄羅斯以前的衛星國和附屬國正確地認定俄羅斯不會接受這些原則，正因如此，它們如此熱切地加入北約(Nato)。北約根本無需強迫它們加入，是它們懇求加入這個軍事同盟。或許它們知道俄羅斯對“關鍵利益”的理解有多麼寬泛，在維護其“關鍵利益”時又是多麼冷酷無情。

At times the outlook among Russia’s elites borders on parody. One reason many in Moscow believe that a political union with Europe is impossible is that Europe is abandoning Christianity and “traditional” norms – for which read acceptance of homosexuality. But I, at least, remember that the Soviet Union whose disappearance Mr Putin bewails persecuted Christianity mercilessly. One might remember, too, that Russia’s elite love this western den of iniquity.

有時，俄羅斯精英的觀點近乎拙劣的模仿。莫斯科的許多人認爲與歐洲結成政治聯盟是不可能的，原因之一就是歐洲拋棄了基督教和“傳統”準則——也就是接受同性戀。但我至少還記得其消亡爲普京所哀悼的蘇聯曾如何殘酷無情地迫害基督教。有人或許還記得，俄羅斯精英是多麼熱愛西方這個罪惡之窟。

“I bully; therefore I am.” That appears to be the motto behind some of the president’s outbursts. But they are no less serious for being absurd. The west is not a threat to Russia. On the contrary, the west knows very well it has a vital interest in good relations with the country. But it is not so easy to ignore an invasion and, yes, that is what it is, however much one might dislike the word. At the same time, an adversarial relationship with a power as important and potentially helpful as Russia is grim.

“我欺凌故我在。”這似乎是俄羅斯總統的一些突然發作背後的格言。這些行爲儘管荒謬，但普京採取它們時頗爲嚴肅。然而西方並不是俄羅斯的威脅。相反，西方非常清楚與俄羅斯保持良好關係符合西方的關鍵利益。但要忽略俄羅斯的侵略並不是那麼容易。沒錯，不管有些人多麼不喜歡這個詞，的確是侵略。同時，與俄羅斯這樣可能頗有用處的重要國家交惡令人憂慮。

Is there a solution to this quandary? All possibilities – further sanctions, massive economic and possibly military assistance to Ukraine or doing nothing at all – carry risks. But the west has to start from an honest reckoning of the Russia it now has to live with. Today’s Russia feels it is the victim of a historic injustice and rejects core western values. It also feels strong enough to act. Today’s Russian leader also sees these potent emotions as a way to secure power. He is not the first such ruler. His Russia is a perilous neighbour. The west must shed its last post-cold war illusions.

有沒有方法解決這個困境？所有的可能方案——進一步制裁、爲烏克蘭提供大規模經濟支援（可能還包括軍事支持），或者什麼也不做——都有風險。但是西方首先必須誠實地估判現在必須與之共存的這個俄羅斯。當今的俄羅斯認爲它是歷史不公正的受害者，拒絕接受西方核心價值觀。它還認爲自己足夠強大因此能採取行動。當今的俄羅斯領導人還發現可以利用這些強烈的情感鞏固權力。他並不是第一個這樣做的統治者。普京治下的俄羅斯是個危險的鄰居。西方必須拋棄冷戰後的最後幻覺。