PBS高端访谈:乌克兰武装会使俄罗斯放弃侵略还是使局势进一步升级?

 　　GWEN IFILL: Should the United States beef up military support to Ukraine?

　　For that, we turn to Steven Pifer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the Clinton administration. He's senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. And John Mearsheimer, a professor of international security policy at the University of Chicago.

　　So what do you think is the answer to the question, Steven Pifer?

　　STEVEN PIFER, Brookings Institution: I think the answer is that we should provide additional military assistance to Ukraine, including some defensive¹ arms, and that's designed to support the diplomacy².

　　It's designed to give the Ukrainians the ability not to beat the Russian army. They can't. But they can raise the costs to the Russians and therefore perhaps in the future deter³ Russian escalation⁴ and further Russian aggression⁵ and then maybe change that calculation in Moscow, where Putin concludes he can't use military force. He has got to go and seek a negotiated settlement.

　　GWEN IFILL: So you're suggesting that the U.S. provide weapons that they can use defensively, not offensively?

　　STEVEN PIFER: The weapons — first of all, the group that I was with when we proposed additional military assistance, the bulk of that is actually non-lethal⁶ assistance.

　　The one area that we visited in Ukraine three weeks ago, we found a real need was for light anti-armor weapons. The Ukrainians have stocks that are over 20 years old and almost three-quarters of them just don't work. And as was mentioned in the report, you have seen in December and January a significant influx⁷ of Russian tanks and other armored vehicles from Russia into Eastern Ukraine.

　　GWEN IFILL: John Mearsheimer, have we reached that point where that's the next step?

　　JOHN MEARSHEIMER, University of Chicago: No, I think it would be a fundamentally foolish idea to arm the Ukrainians.

　　And I think that for two reasons. First of all, it just wouldn't work militarily. The Russians can just counterescalate and they can balance any increase in weapons that we give to Kiev. So we gain no military advantage. And if you're talking about driving up the costs for the Russian, you're also going to drive up the costs for the Ukrainians.

　　There's going to be a real escalation spiral that sets in, and in effect you're going to be backing the Russians into the corner. And the question you want to ask yourself is, do you want to take a country that has thousands of nuclear warheads and back it into a corner? Do you want to raise the costs and risks for that country to the point where it might think about rattling⁸ its nuclear saber?

　　I think the answer is categorically no. I think the last thing that we want to do is try and solve this one militarily. What we want to do is solve it diplomatically.

　　GWEN IFILL: Professor, you used the term escalation spiral. Given the bloodshed of the last several weeks, hasn't that already done and is humanitarian⁹ aid enough to stop that?

　　JOHN MEARSHEIMER: It has begun, there's no question about that. But the point is, it could get a lot worse. What we're talking about here is upping the ante, having an arms race in Ukraine.

　　And the end result is the intensity¹⁰ of the conflict will spiral. And what I'm saying to you is, if it does work to Russia's disadvantage, if Russia is backed into a corner and the Russians become desperate, because core strategic interests are at stake — remember, we're talking about Ukraine here, which is right on their border — their incentives¹¹ to pursue risky¹² policies, which could mean nuclear weapons, are significant.

　　We just want to avoid that situation.

　　GWEN IFILL: Steven Pifer, what about this idea that you're just backing Russia into a corner and you're getting into a war we don't want to get into?

　　STEVEN PIFER: Well, first of all, let's be clear. The Russians put themselves in this situation. It's been Russian aggression against Ukraine that goes back to last March, beginning with the seizure¹³ of Crimea, Russian support for the separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

　　In June, you saw an influx of heavy weapons, including, apparently¹⁴, the surface-to-air missile system that shot down Malaysia Air 17. And then Russian army units went in, in August. So, there has been a continual pattern of Russian escalation, even after September 5, when there was a cease-fire agreed.

　　If you look at the map in Ukraine, you will see that today the Russians and the separatists occupy about 500 square kilometers more than they did five months ago. So the Russians have been escalating¹⁵. I would argue that you can put the Russians in the dilemma¹⁶ on escalation, where further escalation likely then, as Mr. — Professor Mearsheimer described, would involve the Russian army in a way that does two things.

　　One, it exposes at home for Vladimir Putin that the Russian army is fighting in Eastern Ukraine and it then raises the question of casualties. I don't think Mr. Putin cares about dead Russian soldiers, but he cares about the impact of that on his approval rating.

　　And it also then makes clear to Europe that the Russians are fighting there. So the idea that the Russians are automatically going to jump up I think is a mistake. One last point too is we talk about this in kind of a West-Russia context. Ukraine gets a vote.

　　I mean, Ukraine very much has a say or should have a say in how it's going to develop as a country.

　　GWEN IFILL: Professor Mearsheimer, assuming that you disagree with a lot of that, which I'm assuming you do, I do want to move you forward to what the other solution is. Is it diplomacy? Is it standing¹⁷ in place?

　　JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Just before I answer that question, Gwen, let me just say I don't think that Putin and the Russians were generally responsible for this crisis.

　　I think the West is, especially the United States, and it's NATO expansion that's the taproot of this problem. The fact that we have been pushing NATO and the E.U. eastward¹⁸ and trying to pull Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and make Ukraine a bulwark¹⁹ of the West right on Russia's border is what has precipitated²⁰ this crisis.

　　GWEN IFILL: And what…

　　JOHN MEARSHEIMER: What we're doing is it exacerbating²¹ it by arming the Ukrainians.

　　GWEN IFILL: OK. But nobody has been armed yet, at least not lethal aid. What would diplomacy look like? What would Hollande-Merkel solution look like?

　　JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think there is actually a very simple solution to this problem, and that is to turn Ukraine into a neutral buffer²² state.

　　What the West has to do is explicitly²³ take NATO and E.U. expansion off the table and make it clear to Moscow that the United States and its European allies have no intention of siding with a government in Kiev that is anti-Russian and pro-Western.

　　What we want is a neutral government. And then we ought to work with the Russians and with the IMF and with the E.U. to come up with some sort of economic package that can put Ukraine back on its feet. The fact is that the Russians have a vested interest in having a viable²⁴, but neutral Ukraine on their border. So there's no reason we can't work with the Russians to put Ukraine back on its feet.

　　GWEN IFILL: Steven Pifer, given what we saw happen with Crimea, it is possible, is there a reasonable fear that the Eastern Ukraine would become a breakaway state if this were to happen?

　　STEVEN PIFER: Well, I think what you see right now is the Russians are using Eastern Ukraine by sewing instability, chaos²⁵ there. They're trying to destabilize the government in Kiev.

　　I think just a couple points to what Professor Mearsheimer just said. First of all, on the question of NATO, there has been zero enthusiasm in NATO for the last six years to enlarge to Ukraine. The Obama administration has never pursued it. And the Russians know this. I think that's simply a false argument.

　　The second point, though, is, again, when we start talking about pushing Ukraine back towards Russia, we're talking kind of spheres of influence. It's really kind of 19th century. And Europe was trying to move beyond that. And a fundamental point here is with the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, that was designed to say, Europe will play by rules.

　　And one of the cardinal²⁶ rules was nonviability of borders and you don't use military force to take territory from other countries. That's what Russia is doing.

　　GWEN IFILL: Well, we will see what happens with the big meeting in Moscow the next few days, and we will revisit this.

　　Thank you both very much, John Mearsheimer in Chicago and Steven Pifer here with me in Washington.

　　STEVEN PIFER: Thank you.

　　JOHN MEARSHEIMER: You're welcome.

1 defensive   

adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的

参考例句：

• Their questions about the money put her on the defensive.他们问到钱的问题，使她警觉起来。
• The Government hastily organized defensive measures against the raids.政府急忙布置了防卫措施抵御空袭。

2 diplomacy   

n.外交；外交手腕，交际手腕

参考例句：

• The talks have now gone into a stage of quiet diplomacy.会谈现在已经进入了“温和外交”阶段。
• This was done through the skill in diplomacy. 这是通过外交手腕才做到的。

3 deter   

vt.阻止，使不敢，吓住

参考例句：

• Failure did not deter us from trying it again.失败并没有能阻挡我们再次进行试验。
• Dogs can deter unwelcome intruders.狗能够阻拦不受欢迎的闯入者。

4 escalation   

n.扩大，增加

参考例句：

• The threat of nuclear escalation remains. 核升级的威胁仍旧存在。 来自辞典例句
• Escalation is thus an aspect of deterrence and of crisis management. 因此逐步升级是威慑和危机处理的一个方面。 来自辞典例句

5 aggression   

n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害

参考例句：

• So long as we are firmly united, we need fear no aggression.只要我们紧密地团结，就不必惧怕外来侵略。
• Her view is that aggression is part of human nature.她认为攻击性是人类本性的一部份。

6 lethal   

adj.致死的；毁灭性的

参考例句：

• A hammer can be a lethal weapon.铁锤可以是致命的武器。
• She took a lethal amount of poison and died.她服了致命剂量的毒药死了。

7 influx   

n.流入，注入

参考例句：

• The country simply cannot absorb this influx of refugees.这个国家实在不能接纳这么多涌入的难民。
• Textile workers favoured protection because they feared an influx of cheap cloth.纺织工人拥护贸易保护措施，因为他们担心涌入廉价纺织品。

8 rattling   

adj. 格格作响的, 活泼的, 很好的 adv. 极其, 很, 非常 动词rattle的现在分词

参考例句：

• This book is a rattling good read. 这是一本非常好的读物。
• At that same instant,a deafening explosion set the windows rattling. 正在这时，一声震耳欲聋的爆炸突然袭来，把窗玻璃震得当当地响。

9 humanitarian   

n.人道主义者，博爱者，基督凡人论者

参考例句：

• She has many humanitarian interests and contributes a lot to them.她拥有很多慈善事业，并作了很大的贡献。
• The British government has now suspended humanitarian aid to the area.英国政府现已暂停对这一地区的人道主义援助。

10 intensity   

n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度

参考例句：

• I didn't realize the intensity of people's feelings on this issue.我没有意识到这一问题能引起群情激奋。
• The strike is growing in intensity.罢工日益加剧。

11 incentives   

激励某人做某事的事物( incentive的名词复数 )； 刺激； 诱因； 动机

参考例句：

• tax incentives to encourage savings 鼓励储蓄的税收措施
• Furthermore, subsidies provide incentives only for investments in equipment. 更有甚者，提供津贴仅是为鼓励增添设备的投资。 来自英汉非文学 - 环境法 - 环境法

12 risky   

adj.有风险的，冒险的

参考例句：

• It may be risky but we will chance it anyhow.这可能有危险，但我们无论如何要冒一冒险。
• He is well aware how risky this investment is.他心里对这项投资的风险十分清楚。

13 seizure   

n.没收；占有；抵押

参考例句：

• The seizure of contraband is made by customs.那些走私品是被海关没收的。
• The courts ordered the seizure of all her property.法院下令查封她所有的财产。

14 apparently   

adv.显然地；表面上，似乎

参考例句：

• An apparently blind alley leads suddenly into an open space.山穷水尽，豁然开朗。
• He was apparently much surprised at the news.他对那个消息显然感到十分惊异。

15 escalating   

v.（使）逐步升级( escalate的现在分词 )；（使）逐步扩大；（使）更高；（使）更大

参考例句：

• The cost of living is escalating. 生活费用在迅速上涨。 来自《简明英汉词典》
• The cost of living is escalating in the country. 这个国家的生活费用在上涨。 来自辞典例句

16 dilemma   

n.困境，进退两难的局面

参考例句：

• I am on the horns of a dilemma about the matter.这件事使我进退两难。
• He was thrown into a dilemma.他陷入困境。

17 standing   

n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的

参考例句：

• After the earthquake only a few houses were left standing.地震过后只有几幢房屋还立着。
• They're standing out against any change in the law.他们坚决反对对法律做任何修改。

18 eastward   

adv.向东；adj.向东的；n.东方，东部

参考例句：

• The river here tends eastward.这条河从这里向东流。
• The crowd is heading eastward,believing that they can find gold there.人群正在向东移去，他们认为在那里可以找到黄金。

19 bulwark   

n.堡垒，保障，防御

参考例句：

• That country is a bulwark of freedom.那个国家是自由的堡垒。
• Law and morality are the bulwark of society.法律和道德是社会的防御工具。

20 precipitated   

v.（突如其来地）使发生( precipitate的过去式和过去分词 )；促成；猛然摔下；使沉淀

参考例句：

• His resignation precipitated a leadership crisis. 他的辞职立即引发了领导层的危机。
• He lost his footing and was precipitated to the ground. 他失足摔倒在地上。 来自《简明英汉词典》

21 exacerbating   

v.使恶化，使加重( exacerbate的现在分词 )

参考例句：

• This pedagogical understretch is exacerbating social inequalities. 这种教学张力不足加重了社会不平等。 来自互联网
• High fertilizer prices are exacerbating the problem. 高涨的肥料价格更加加剧了问题的恶化。 来自互联网

22 buffer   

n.起缓冲作用的人(或物)，缓冲器；vt.缓冲

参考例句：

• A little money can be a useful buffer in time of need.在急需时，很少一点钱就能解燃眉之急。
• Romantic love will buffer you against life's hardships.浪漫的爱会减轻生活的艰辛。

23 explicitly   

ad.明确地，显然地

参考例句：

• The plan does not explicitly endorse the private ownership of land. 该计划没有明确地支持土地私有制。
• SARA amended section 113 to provide explicitly for a right to contribution. 《最高基金修正与再授权法案》修正了第123条，清楚地规定了分配权。 来自英汉非文学 - 环境法 - 环境法

24 viable   

adj.可行的，切实可行的，能活下去的

参考例句：

• The scheme is economically viable.这个计划从经济效益来看是可行的。
• The economy of the country is not viable.这个国家经济是难以维持的。

25 chaos   

n.混乱，无秩序

参考例句：

• After the failure of electricity supply the city was in chaos.停电后，城市一片混乱。
• The typhoon left chaos behind it.台风后一片混乱。

26 cardinal   

n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的

参考例句：

• This is a matter of cardinal significance.这是非常重要的事。
• The Cardinal coloured with vexation. 红衣主教感到恼火，脸涨得通红。