美国总统特朗普与乌克兰总统泽连斯基，于2025年4月26日在教宗方济各葬礼后于罗马举行面对面会谈，被不少媒体形容为一场具有历史意义会晤。当时双方均表示，这场没有幕僚陪同的一对一会谈，就乌克兰战争议题进行了富有成果的交流。那时，两位领导人讨论了停火的可能性、实现和平的策略，以及结束战争的不同方案。
当时，这场欧洲自第二次世界大战结束以来最血腥的战争，似乎已经露出终结的曙光。
然而，一年过去了，特朗普总统在多次公开表示对达成和平协议充满信心，并称和平近在咫尺后，如今似乎已经放弃了促成和谈的努力。
特朗普最大的误判，似乎在于根本低估了北约在这场战争中的角色，同时高估了美国作为全球霸权，在欧洲地缘政治中依然是唯一关键主导者的地位。
这种思维，与北约自身的战略盘算形成鲜明对比。北约显然已做好长期支持乌克兰的准备，其目的不仅是延续战争，更是确保乌克兰获胜、阻止俄罗斯取得胜利。
北约为何要延续乌克兰战争？
北约希望战争持续的迹象，可从以下几方面观察：
制定乌克兰长期胜利战略：北约正由过去对基辅“零散支援”，转向“工业化、持久化的战争模式”。其核心目标是确保俄罗斯无法获胜，因为北约认为，一旦俄罗斯胜利，将可能鼓励俄罗斯进一步对外扩张。
庞大且跨年度的军援承诺：2026年于土耳其安卡拉召开的北约峰会上，北约承诺于2026年向乌克兰提供700亿欧元（约3263亿令吉）军事援助，并承诺2027年至少维持同等规模。这种多年预算安排，显示北约准备与俄罗斯打一场持久战。
迈向“北约3.0”模式：北约正推动由欧洲盟国及加拿大承担大部分双边及多边安全援助，降低对美国的依赖，同时建立可持续发展的欧洲国防工业体系。
深化乌克兰融入北约军工体系：北约允许乌克兰在本土生产“爱国者”防空飞弹系统，使乌克兰逐步纳入北约国防工业链，令军援更具持续性，也较不受政治变动影响。
这一系列投入，建立在北约相信支持乌克兰符合其“直接利益”的基础上，也反映北约早已将乌克兰战争视为一项“需要多年预算规划的长期战略”，而非短暂危机。
北约的冷战基因
若要真正理解北约对乌克兰战争的立场，以及为何它将持续反对特朗普推动的停战努力，就必须回到北约成立的历史背景。这个经常被媒体评论忽略的历史脉络，有助于解释，这个号称防御性的军事联盟，为何除了依照自身条件外，几乎不接受任何与普京领导下的俄罗斯达成的和平方案。
北约成立于1949年，其三大核心目标包括：遏制苏联扩张、防止欧洲民族主义军国主义复辟，以及推动欧洲政治整合。
为了对抗苏联，北约设立的《北大西洋公约》第五条款，即著名的集体防御条款，表明任何成员遭受攻击，即视同全体成员遭受攻击。这套以反苏为核心的欧洲安全架构，经历八十年的演变，虽已超越当初设计，但至今仍是北约最根本的战略原则。
1946年，美国外交官乔治．凯南（George Kennan）在著名的《长电报》报告中提出，苏联本质上具有扩张性，但可透过长期而坚定的遏制政策加以制衡。这成为后来北约战略思想的重要基础。
1948年，捷克斯洛伐克共产党政变，以及苏联封锁西柏林，更使西欧与美国认定，唯有建立统一军事联盟，才能阻止苏联主宰整个欧洲。
1949年，《北大西洋公约》正式由12个创始国签署，美国主导建立安全保护伞，将北美军事力量正式与西欧防务结合，以制衡苏联的传统军力优势。
作为回应，苏联及其东欧盟友于1955年成立华沙公约组织，正式确立冷战时期欧洲两大军事集团对峙局面，直到苏联解体才告终结。
北约东扩与乌克兰这条红线
冷战结束后，北约并未随之解散，反而持续扩张其成员与使命。随著北约逐步向前苏联势力范围扩展，并介入巴尔干事务，俄罗斯与西方的紧张关系不断升高。俄罗斯在1990年代初曾试图加入北约未果，更加深其认为北约本质上就是排斥俄罗斯的联盟。
2008年于罗马布加勒斯特峰会上，北约宣布乌克兰与乔治亚未来将成为成员国，被普遍视为俄乌冲突走向今日局面的重要转折点。
俄罗斯另一项指控──至今西方官方从未正式驳斥──是西方领袖曾向苏联领导人戈尔巴乔夫口头承诺，在德国统一后，北约“不会向东扩张一寸”。然而，在莫斯科眼中，北约其后一路东扩，到2024年已增至32个成员国，不仅违背了承诺，更构成直接挑衅。对俄罗斯而言，这并非西方所说的“防卫措施”，而是对其国家安全构成“生存威胁”。
俄罗斯总统普京多次强调，乌克兰是俄罗斯绝不可退让的“红线”。一旦失去乌克兰，不仅将彻底改变欧洲战略力量平衡，也将阻碍建立一个新的、包容性的欧洲安全架构。这一观点，特朗普及不少非欧洲国家的领导人，似乎都表示认同。
乌克兰的胜利，代价由谁承担？
无论最终是哪一股外部力量促成这场战争的结束，即使是最坚定支持北约的人，也难以否认：这场战争，其实是北约在冷战胜利后，未能建立涵盖整个欧洲的共同安全体系，反而持续东扩，最终迫使俄罗斯采取军事行动的悲剧结果。
遗憾的是，真正承受这场战争巨大代价的，始终是乌克兰人民。无数生命因此丧失，国家经济遭到重创，而这个代价至今仍在持续。
这也是西方，尤其是美国，历次参与战争，包括目前对伊朗发动的军事行动，所留下的一项沉重教训。如果未来亚太地区爆发新的战争，人们恐怕也将再次见到同样的历史重演。
林德宜《乌克兰：北约与欧盟对阵特朗普》原文：Ukraine: NATO and European Union Versus Trump
In what some media touted as a historic encounter, U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a face-to-face meeting in Rome following the funeral of Pope Francis on April 26, 2025 in which both sides characterized the un-aided, one-on-one discussion on the Ukraine war as productive. At that time, the two leaders discussed key issues on the war, including a potential ceasefire, strategies for achieving peace, and competing proposals for ending the conflict.
The end to Europe’s bloodiest war since the end of the 2nd World War appeared then to be in sight.
One year on, President Trump, after repeatedly stating his optimism that a peace agreement is attainable and just around the corner, appears to have given up on his efforts.
Trump’s error appears to have fundamentally underestimated NATO's role in the war and to overestimate America’s position as a global hegemon in being the key player in European geopolitics.
This approach contrasts sharply with NATO's own strategic calculus, which points to a deep-seated investment in supporting Ukraine for the long haul, not only to prolong the war, but to ensure a Ukrainian victory and prevent a Russian one.
Why NATO Is Invested In Ukraine War Continuation
That NATO is invested in the continuation of the war can be deduced from the following evidence :
· A Long-Term Strategy for Ukrainian Victory: NATO is moving from "sporadic support for Kyiv towards a more industrialized, prolonged war strategy". The goal is to ensure Russia does not win, reflecting a view that a Russian victory could embolden further aggression.
· Massive, Multi-Year Financial Commitment: At the 2026 Ankara summit, NATO pledged €70 billion ($82.1 billion) in military aid for Ukraine in 2026, with a commitment to sustain at least equivalent levels in 2027. This long-term planning signals a commitment to outlast Russia.
· Shift to "NATO 3.0": NATO is shifting toward a model where "European allies and Canada are now financing the majority of bilateral and multilateral security assistance", aiming to reduce reliance on the U.S. and build a sustainable European defense industrial base.
· Deep Integration of Ukraine: By allowing Ukraine to produce Patriot missile systems domestically, NATO is integrating Ukraine into its defense industrial complex, making support more self-sustaining and less susceptible to political shifts.
This investment is driven by the belief that supporting Ukraine is in NATO's "direct interest" and that the war is not a temporary crisis but a "long-term project with multi-year budget planning".
NATOs Cold War Origins
Just as if not more important in understanding NATO’s perspective of the war, and why it will continue to oppose Trump’s effort to end it, is discernible by burrowing into the origins of the organization and its history. This backdrop, missing from most media commentaries and analysis, helps explain why the supposedly defensive alliance is opposed to any peace settlement with Putin's Russia, except on its own terms.
NATO was established in 1949 with three core goals: deterring Soviet expansionism, preventing the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe, and encouraging European political integration.
To counter the Soviet Union, Article 5, a collective defense clause declaring that an attack against one member is an attack against all, has been in place. This anti-Soviet positioning in European geopolitics was shaped through a series of specific historical developments and doctrines that go back 80 years. It has mutated beyond its initial objectives but is still a cardinal principle.
In 1946, U.S. diplomat George Kennan's "Long Telegram" argued that the Soviet Union was inherently expansionist but could be contained through firm, long-term strategic resistance. This formed the ideological basis for NATO's defensive perimeter. The 1948 communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet blockade of West Berlin convinced Western European nations and the United States that a unified military alliance was necessary to prevent the USSR from dominating the continent.
In 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was agreed to by 12 founding nations, and formalized a security umbrella backed by the United States. This effectively linked North American military power to Western European defense, deterring conventional Soviet superiority.
In response, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European ally states formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 solidifying the Cold War division of Europe which continued until the breakup of the Soviet Union.
NATO Expansion and the Ukraine Red Line
Instead of dissolving after the Cold War, NATO has continued to expand its membership and mission. Tensions escalated as NATO moved into former Soviet states and intervened in the Balkans. Russia's failed attempts to join NATO in the early 1990s suggested that the alliance was intended to exclude Russia.
The 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members, is frequently cited as the point where the die was cast.
Another Russian allegation - not refuted by official channels - is that Western leaders gave informal assurances to Soviet President Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" after German reunification. From Moscow's view, NATO's subsequent enlargements (to 32 members by 2024) broke this promise and acted as a direct provocation. Russians have seen this as an "existential threat" rather than an act of self-defense.
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asserted that Ukraine is a "red line," a loss that would fundamentally shift the strategic balance of power and one that would be an obstacle rather than a positive to creating a new, inclusive European security order. It is a view that Trump and most non European leaders appear to endorse.
Ukraine Victory At Whose Cost
Whichever external forces and factors will be instrumental in helping bring an end to the war, even the staunchest of NATO's proponents cannot dispute that the war is the tragic conclusion of a decades-long process where a triumphant NATO failed to build a pan-European security system, instead expanding to the point where Russia felt compelled to act.
Unfortunately it is Ukraine that has, and will continue, to pay the horrendous price in human casualties and economic losses for the failure to end the war.
This is the costly lesson from all the wars that the West and the US have engaged in, including the current one waged in Iran. Expect this to happen too with any war in the Asia Pacific region.
本文观点，不代表《东方日报》立场。
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
.jpeg/3a4b4379f473914ab3818e233e7647e2.jpeg)
