精神不健全的喬·拜登已經跨越了與俄羅斯的代理戰爭和直接戰爭之間的界限

21 Nov, 2024 21:03 2024年11月21日 21:03

A mentally unfit Joe Biden has crossed the line between proxy and direct war with Russia精神不健全的喬·拜登已經跨越了與俄羅斯的代理戰爭和直接戰爭之間的界限

https://www.rt.com/russia/607939-us-crossed-line-war-russia/

What will be the consequences be of the American president’s approval of long-range missile strikes?美國總統批准遠程飛彈襲擊會產生什麼後果？

By Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Substack.

作者：Glenn Diesen，挪威東南大學教授、《全球事務中的俄羅斯》雜誌編輯。 在 Substack 上關注他。

The discussions in the West about authorizing long-range missile strikes on Russia are profoundly dishonest and misleading. The political-media elites present deeply flawed arguments to support the conclusion that attacking Russia with these weapons doesn’t cross the line between proxy war and direct war.西方關於授權對俄羅斯進行遠程飛彈襲擊的討論是極其不誠實和誤導的。政治媒體菁英提出了存在嚴重缺陷的論點來支持這樣的結論：用這些武器攻擊俄羅斯並沒有跨越代理人戰爭和直接戰爭之間的界線。

NATO may be successful in deluding itself, yet for Moscow there is no doubt that this is an act of war.北約可能成功地欺騙了自己，但對莫斯科來說，毫無疑問這是一場戰爭行為。“Ukraine has the right to defend itself”“烏克蘭有權自衛” The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself as a justification for NATO to authorize long-range strikes into Russia is very manipulative. The public is pulled in with a very reasonable premise, based on the universal acceptance of the right to self-defense.以烏克蘭有權自衛為北約授權對俄羅斯進行遠程打擊的理由的論點非常具有操縱性。公眾的參與是基於一個非常合理的前提，基於對自衛權的普遍接受。Once people have accepted this, then it’s presented as a foregone conclusion that Ukraine should be supplied with long-range missiles to attack Russia. The extent of NATO’s involvement in the war, as the main issue, is subsequently eliminated entirely from the argument.一旦人們接受了這一點，那麼向烏克蘭提供遠程導彈來攻擊俄羅斯就已成定局。北約參與戰爭的程度作為主要問題隨後被完全排除在爭論之外。

The point of departure in an honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between proxy war and direct war crossed? These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on American intelligence and targeting. They will be operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites. 誠實討論的出發點應該從正確的問題開始：代理人戰爭和直接戰爭之間的界線何時跨越？這些是美國的遠程導彈，它們的使用完全取決於美國的情報和瞄準。它們將由美國士兵操作並由美國衛星引導。Launching them from Ukraine does not make it any less of a direct American attack on Russia. 從烏克蘭發射這些飛彈並不會減少美國對俄羅斯的直接攻擊。Washington didn’t use these weapons against Russia for three years as it knew it would amount to a direct attack, yet now the media is attempting to sell the narrative of this merely being uncontroversial military aid to enable Ukraine to defend itself.華盛頓三年來沒有對俄羅斯使用這些武器，因為它知道這將構成直接攻擊，但現在媒體試圖兜售這只是毫無爭議的軍事援助的說法，以使烏克蘭能夠自衛。The US and some of its NATO allies have decided to attack Russia directly, and they should be honest about this intention. Attempts to present it as merely giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself constitute an irresponsible effort to shame any dissent and avoid a serious discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power.美國及其一些北約盟國已決定直接攻擊俄羅斯，他們應該誠實地表達這個意圖。試圖將其描述為僅僅是向烏克蘭提供軍事援助以自衛，這是一種不負責任的做法，目的是羞辱任何異議，並避免就攻擊世界上最大的核國家進行認真討論。

It is imperative to place oneself in the shoes of opponents and ask how we would interpret a situation and what we would do if the situation were reversed. The US and NATO have invaded many countries over the years, so we do not need to delve too deep into our imagination to set up a hypothetical scenario. 我們必須設身處地為對手著想，問我們會如何解讀情況，如果情況相反我們會怎麼做。美國和北約多年來入侵了許多國家，所以我們不需要太深入地想像來建立假設場景。How would we have reacted if Moscow had sent long-range missiles, dependent on Russian intelligence and targeting, operated by Russian soldiers and guided by Russian satellites, to attack NATO countries under the guise of merely helping Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen of another country to defend itself? 如果莫斯科以僅僅幫助南斯拉夫、阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亞、敘利亞,另一個國家也門保衛自己為幌子，發射依賴俄羅斯情報和目標、由俄羅斯士兵操作並由俄羅斯衛星引導的遠程飛彈攻擊北約國家，我們會如何反應，？We are deluding ourselves if we pretend that this would not have been interpreted as a direct attack, and despite the great risks involved, we would be compelled to retaliate to restore our deterrent.如果我們假裝這不會被解釋為直接攻擊，那麼我們就是在自欺欺人，儘管存在巨大風險，但我們將被迫報復以恢復我們的威懾力。

President Putin warned in September 2024 that Russia would interpret this as a direct attack and the beginning of a NATO-Russia War, and Putin argued that Russia would respond accordingly. The clarity in his language makes it nearly impossible to walk back the commitment to strike back at NATO, which is a deliberate tactic in the game of chicken, as Russia cannot swirl away.普丁總統於2024年9月警告稱，俄羅斯將將此解讀為直接攻擊以及北約-俄羅斯戰爭的開始，普丁辯稱俄羅斯將做出相應反應。他語言的清晰性使得人們幾乎不可能收回反擊北約的承諾，這是一場「膽小鬼遊戲」中的故意策略，因為俄羅斯無法逃脫。Stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine or Kursk are used to legitimize the attack on Russia. This is most likely NATO war propaganda as there would be some evidence if thousands of North Korean soldiers were fighting. The North Koreans allegedly training in Russia are likely intended as a deterrent in case NATO would go to war against Russia. However, even if North Koreans involve themselves in the fighting, it does not make NATO any less of a participant in the war by attacking Russia.有關數千名北韓士兵在烏克蘭或庫爾斯克作戰的故事被用來使對俄羅斯的攻擊合法化。這很可能是北約的戰爭宣傳，因為如果有數千名北韓士兵在戰鬥，就會有一些證據。據稱，北韓人在俄羅斯進行訓練可能是為了防止北約對俄羅斯開戰。然而，即使北韓捲入戰鬥，也不會因為攻擊俄羅斯而減少北約參與戰爭的程度。“Russia would not dare to retaliate against NATO”“俄羅斯不敢對北約進行報復”

The reluctance by Moscow in the past to sufficiently retaliate against NATO’s incremental escalations has been presented as evidence for the false conclusion that it wouldn’t dare respond. There is no doubt that Russia’s restraints have emboldened NATO. President Biden once argued that sending F-16s would result in a Third World War, such warnings now are denounced as ”Russian propaganda”. Russia’s failure to respond when the US crossed that line meant that the US could argue it did not amount to a direct attack. The rules of proxy war subsequently changed.莫斯科過去不願對北約的逐步升級行動進行充分報復，這已成為其不敢做出回應的錯誤結論的證據。毫無疑問，俄羅斯的克制讓北約更有底氣。拜登總統曾聲稱派遣F-16戰機將導致第三次世界大戰，此類警告現在被斥為「俄羅斯宣傳」。當美國越過這條線時，俄羅斯未能做出反應，這意味著美國可以辯稱這並不構成直接攻擊。代理人戰爭的規則隨後發生了變化。

Russia’s dilemma over the past three years has been to either respond at the risk of triggering a Third World War, or to gradually abandon its deterrent and embolden the US. With every NATO escalation, Russia is facing an ever-higher price for its restraint. Russia has been under pressure to set a final red line, and NATO attacking Russia directly is simply too dangerous to go unanswered.過去三年來，俄羅斯面臨的困境是，要麼冒著引發第三次世界大戰的風險做出反應，要麼逐漸放棄威懾，為美國壯膽。隨著北約的每次升級，俄羅斯的克制都面臨越來越高的代價。俄羅斯一直面臨設定最後紅線的壓力，而北約直接攻擊俄羅斯實在太危險了，不能不回應。How will Russia respond? There are several more steps on the escalation ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, possibly introduce North Korean troops, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centers in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves. 俄羅斯將如何應對？在按下核按鈕之前，升級階梯上還有幾個步驟。俄羅斯可以加強對烏克蘭政治目標和基礎設施的打擊，可能引入朝鮮軍隊，打擊黑海的北約資產以及波蘭或羅馬尼亞的後勤中心，摧毀用於攻擊俄羅斯的衛星，或攻擊美國/北約在其他地區的軍事資產世界部分地區打著讓其他國家能夠自衛的幌子。

Russia’s response will also depend on how these missiles are used. The New York Times has suggested that the use of these missiles would be limited and primarily used to assist Ukraine with the occupation of Kursk, which also makes the US an even more involved participant in the occupation of Russian territory. However, Russia must respond forcefully to any breach of its red lines to counter NATO’s incrementalism – salami tactics that aim to chop away at its deterrent. The purpose of such incrementalism is to avoid an excessive response from Russia. The US will predictably impose restrictions on how these weapons can be used as it engages in direct attacks on Russia, but gradually these restrictions will be removed.俄羅斯的反應也將取決於這些飛彈的使用方式。 《紐約時報》暗示，這些飛彈的使用將受到限制，主要用於協助烏克蘭佔領庫爾斯克，這也使得美國成為更多佔領俄羅斯領土的參與者。然而，俄羅斯必須對任何違反其紅線的行為做出強有力的反應，以對抗北約的漸進主義——旨在削弱其威懾力的薩拉米策略。這種漸進主義的目的是避免俄羅斯做出過度反應。可以預見的是，在對俄羅斯進行直接攻擊時，美國將限制這些武器的使用方式，但這些限制將逐漸被取消。

The extent of Russia’s response will depend on the extent to which these weapons are effective. The war is evidently being won by Russia, which is why Moscow is cautious about any escalations, as it only needs time. However, if these weapons would actually turn the tide of the war, then Russia would consider itself compelled to launch a powerful attack on NATO as Moscow considers this to be a war for its survival. NATO should therefore hope that these weapons are not effective, which undermines the reasoning for using them at all. 俄羅斯的反應程度將取決於這些武器的有效程度。這場戰爭顯然是俄羅斯贏得的，這就是為什麼莫斯科對任何升級都持謹慎態度，因為這只需要時間。然而，如果這些武器確實能夠扭轉戰爭局勢，那麼俄羅斯將認為自己被迫對北約發動強而有力的攻擊，因為莫斯科認為這是一場關乎其生存的戰爭。因此，北約應該 希望這些武器不起作用，這根本就破壞了使用它們的理由。The missiles can turn the tide of the war飛彈可以扭轉戰爭局勢The war has already been lost, and Washington previously admitted that these long-range missiles would not be a game changer. There are two reasons for escalating the war at this point, to further bleed Russia and to sabotage Trump’s objective to end the fighting.戰爭已經失敗，華盛頓先前也承認這些遠程飛彈不會改變遊戲規則。此時升級戰爭有兩個原因，一是進一步讓俄羅斯流血，二是破壞川普結束戰鬥的目標。

There is overwhelming evidence that the overarching objective in sabotaging all paths to peace and fighting the proxy war in Ukraine has been to weaken Russia as a strategic rival. Even Vladimir Zelensky recognized in March 2022 that some Western states wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia: ”There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” Both Israeli and Turkish mediators have confirmed that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in order to pit Russia against the Ukrainians, while interviews with top American and British diplomats have revealed that the weakening of Russia and regime change in Moscow was the only acceptable outcome.有壓倒性的證據表明，破壞所有和平道路和在烏克蘭打代理人戰爭的首要目標是削弱俄羅斯作為戰略競爭對手的地位。甚至弗拉基米爾·澤倫斯基(Vladimir Zelensky) 也在2022 年3 月承認，一些西方國家希望利用烏克蘭作為對抗俄羅斯的代理人：「西方有些人不介意長期戰爭，因為這意味著讓俄羅斯筋疲力盡，即使這意味著俄羅斯的滅亡。 以色列和土耳其調解員都證實，美國和英國破壞伊斯坦堡和平協議，是為了讓俄羅斯與烏克蘭對立，而對美國和英國高級外交官的採訪顯示，俄羅斯的衰弱和莫斯科政權更迭是唯一可以接受的選擇。結果。

The timing of Washington’s decision is also suspicious and appears to aim at sabotaging Trump’s massive mandate to end the proxy war. By comparison, Obama similarly threw a wrench into US-Russia relations in late 2016 as he was handing the White House over to Trump. The anti-Russian sanctions and expulsion of Russian diplomats were intended to sabotage Trump’s promise to get along with Russia. Biden appears to be following the same playbook by risking a Third World War to prevent peace from breaking out in Ukraine. Biden was too cognitively impaired to run for re-election, yet he is supposedly mentally fit enough to attack Russia as he prepares to leave the White House.華盛頓這項決定的時機也很可疑，似乎旨在破壞川普結束代理人戰爭的大規模授權。相較之下，歐巴馬在2016年底將白宮交給川普時也同樣破壞了美俄關係。反俄製裁和驅逐俄羅斯外交官的目的就是為了破壞川普與俄羅斯和睦相處的承諾。拜登似乎也遵循同樣的策略，冒著第三次世界大戰的風險來阻止烏克蘭爆發和平。拜登的認知障礙太嚴重，無法競選連任，但據稱他在準備離開白宮時精神健康，足以攻擊俄羅斯。

NATO Goes to War 北約開戰 The world today is more dangerous than at any other time in history. The US decision to attack the world’s largest nuclear power is a desperate effort to restore global primacy. What makes this situation even more dangerous is the absurd self-deception across the West that results in us sleepwalking towards nuclear war. The public should be presented with more honest arguments when making the case for risking a third world war and nuclear annihilation.當今世界比歷史上任何時期都更危險。美國決定攻擊世界上最大的核武國家，是為恢復全球主導地位所做的孤注一擲的努力。使這種情況變得更加危險的是整個西方荒謬的自欺欺人，導致我們夢遊般走向核戰。在論證冒第三次世界大戰和核毀滅的風險時，應該向公眾提供更誠實的論點。

This piece was first published on Glenn Diesen’s Substack and edited by the RT team.這篇文章首先發表在 Glenn Diesen 的 Substack 上，並由 RT 團隊編輯。