|
俄烏戰爭現況：開欄文
|
瀏覽5,044 ｜回應34｜推薦2 |
|
|
|
烏克蘭的「春季攻勢」蛻化為「夏季攻勢」後，明顯地陷入膠著；沒有什麼值得寫封家書來匯報的進展。以下轉載兩篇「戰況評估」。我存檔備查；看官們請自行參考。
第一篇號稱是：分別從普丁和澤倫斯基兩位的角度，就(佔有)領土、心理、以及軍事三個層面所做的分析。
第二篇是布林肯國務卿的評估。我相信政治作用含量應該超標，可信度自然必須打個折扣。何況，自鮑爾之後，「美國國務卿會說謊」是討論政治的人不得不常記於心的教訓。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
烏軍攻入俄境有意義嗎？ ---- Jasen J. Castillo等
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
請參見下一篇《評論》。
Symposium: What does Ukraine's incursion into Russia really mean?
Ten experts gauge the short and long term effects of Kyiv’s bold invasion on the war
Responsible Statecraft, 08/15/24
Beginning Aug. 6, the Ukrainian military launched a surprise, cross-border offensive against Russia in the eastern Kursk region, seemingly flipping the script on the war’s current trajectory.
Kyiv claims its units have pushed more than 20 miles into Russian territory, taking over 74 settlements and towns encompassing some 400 square miles, as well as over 100 Russian prisoners of war.
For its part, Moscow has acknowledged the incursion but as of Wednesday said its military has stabilized the border and is actively fighting to wrest control over those contested areas. Meanwhile, the fog of war has settled in and there is no official confirmation on the number of casualties or actual territorial gains by Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced the incursion as a “large-scale provocation.” For its part the Ukraine Foreign Ministry is saying this isn’t about holding territory but stopping long-range missile strikes by Russia into Ukraine from the Kursk region by creating a “buffer zone” there.
So many questions remain about the Ukrainian strategy, the Russian response and what long term impact this may have — or not — on the overall war, including the potential for future negotiations, the effect on morale on both sides, and whether this emboldens Ukraine’s supporters, including the U.S., to help re-energize what was looking like a foundering war effort on the Ukrainian side.
So we put the following question to a well-rounded group of foreign policy experts:
"What is the likely impact of current Ukrainian military incursions into the Russian Kursk region on the broader Ukraine War?"
Jasen J. Castillo, Monica Duffy Toft, Ivan Eland, Mark Episkopos, Lyle Goldstein, John Mearsheimer, Sumantra Maitra, Rajan Menon, Peter Rutland, Stephen Walt
Jasen J. Castillo, Co-Director, Albritton Center for Grand Strategy, George H.W. Bush School of Government, Texas A&M University
Once again, Ukraine's armed forces have demonstrated their tremendous will to fight, something Russia discounted when they invaded in 2022. Nevertheless, the military objective of this offensive remains unclear. In the short term, this is a public relations boost for Ukraine and a morale blow to Russia. The Kursk gamble might also reduce pressure on Ukraine's defenses as Russia moves forces to stop the incursion. My worry is that in the longer term, Ukraine, which is facing dangerous shortfalls in manpower and equipment, will deplete elite units that would have been needed elsewhere. In a war of attrition, manpower and equipment are essential. Ukraine's attack reminds me of Germany's audacious Western offensive in 1944 that surprised the Allies, made gains, and ended with a defeat at the Battle of the Bulge, which then wasted manpower and equipment it needed months later on the Eastern Front.
Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
The likely impact of Ukraine’s military incursion into Russia is going to affect two axes of interest; one material, and one psychological.
On the material axis, Ukraine may be able to temporarily degrade Russia’s ability to launch missile attacks against Ukrainian targets, the most sensitive of which involve the deliberate and systematic harm of Ukraine’s noncombatants. But in material terms, not much can be expected in terms of lasting impact. Ukraine will be forced to retreat from Russia, and its surviving troops and equipment will be redistributed, after rest and refit, to other critical areas of Ukraine’s front with Russia.
It is on the psychological axis we can expect the most impact. Already, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s legitimacy as a “great leader” was damaged in the opening weeks of the war. This latest incursion is worse, because no Russian leader can afford to preside over the loss of Russian territory, even temporarily, and survive with reputation intact.
That said, Putin has unprecedented control over what Russians learn about the war. The psychological impact will be most felt by Ukraine and its allies. It will alleviate attention fatigue in the global sphere. It also reminds Western donors that Ukraine can fight and win, so the ongoing sacrifice of sending weapons and ammunition will not be wasted.
Ivan Eland, Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty.
Although Ukraine has insisted that its intent is not to hold captured land in Russia, one might then ask what purpose the incursion serves. It may have been designed to shock Russian leader Vladimir Putin about Russia’s vulnerability, but prior raids or attacks on Russia and Crimea have already so demonstrated.
Conducting offensive operations is usually much more costly in personnel and equipment than being on defense, so is it worth it for Ukraine to divert forces from already thin defense lines to go on a risky offensive with only nebulous benefits? Russia’s offensive is already making headway, and because Russia outnumbers and outguns Ukraine, it may not need to denude its attack forces in Ukraine to defend Russian territory. Ukraine indeed may desire to occupy Russian territory to eventually trade Ukrainian-occupied Russian territory for Russian-occupied Ukrainian land in any truce negotiations, but Ukraine risks being surrounded by superior forces.
Mark Episkopos, Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Adjunct Professor of History at Marymount University
表單的底部
The Kursk incursion seems to have been premised on the assumption that Ukraine can exploit Russia’s thinly manned border defenses to seize large swathes of land — including the Kursk nuclear power plant — in the first 48-72 hours, presenting Moscow with a fait accompli that can be used as a bargaining chip to quickly force a ceasefire and potentially even set the stage for peace talks on Ukraine’s terms. But Russia appears to have thwarted the AFU’s attempts to significantly expand its initial beachhead, and Ukraine lacks the long-term capacity to hold even the modest territory that it is currently contesting.
Efforts to keep open the Kursk pocket are unlikely to yield any strategic benefits for Ukraine and will demand a massive sustained investment of troops and equipment that may weaken Ukrainian defenses, inadvertently creating opportunities for Russian forces along the lines of contact in Ukraine’s Donbas region.
Lyle Goldstein, Director of Asia Development, Defense Priorities, and visiting Professor at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Kyiv’s brazen offensive into Russia’s Kursk region illustrates that Ukraine still has significant combat capability, as well as some measure of fighting pluck. No doubt the operation has served its primary end to embarrass the Kremlin and so dramatically alter the conventional narrative on the war. Still, legitimate questions can be asked regarding the wisdom of the new offensive. Casualties for the attacking side are inevitably high, especially in circumstances when Russia retains a substantial firepower advantage. This may, in turn, create grave weaknesses on other part of the battle line that Russian forces could exploit. Most informed American strategists had been counseling Ukraine in 2024 to stay on the defensive to preserve its forces and thus adopt a “long war” strategy. Nor is it clear that such a symbolic gambit will make a peace easier to negotiate. Finally, this is yet another step in the inadvisable direction of general escalation.
John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute
Ukraine’s invasion (of Kursk) was a major strategic blunder, which will accelerate its defeat. The key determinant of success in a war of attrition is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory, which Western commentators obsess over. The casualty-exchange ratio in the Kursk offensive decisively favors Russia for two reasons. First, it has caused relatively few Russian casualties because Ukraine’s army effectively overran undefended territory. Second, once alerted to the attack, Moscow quickly brought massive airpower to bear against the advancing Ukrainian troops, who were in the open and easy to strike. Unsurprisingly, the attacking forces lost many soldiers and a huge proportion of their equipment.
To make matters worse, Kyiv removed top-notch combat units from the front lines in eastern Ukraine — where they are desperately needed — and made them part of the Kursk strike force. This move is tilting the already lopsided casualty-exchange ratio on that critically important front further in Russia’s favor. It is no wonder — given what a foolish idea the Kursk incursion is — that the Russians were caught by surprise.
Sumantra Maitra, Director of research and outreach, the American Ideas Institute, author of “Sources of Russian Aggression”
If Ukraine taking the war to Russia was to bring Russia to negotiate from a position of weakness, it will fail, simply because Ukrainians don't have the manpower to sustain this push and subsequent occupation. It is a good PR victory for Ukrainian backers in the West, and it shows how catastrophically backward, incompetent, and Soviet, Russian strategic thinking still is, but the Russian advantage in numbers will remain.
What it also might do is harden the Russian position, embolden the hardliners in the Russian government, and dissuade Putin from pushing for any negotiations for peace, especially after a new administration is elected in the U.S. Which, maybe, was the actual aim of the Ukrainian government, or whoever is advising them. In scuttling that particular process, Ukraine has been successful.
Rajan Menon, non-resident senior fellow at Defense Priorities and the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair Emeritus in International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York/City University of New York.
Ukraine’s Kursk gambit has been widely praised — appropriately. But its enduring success remains uncertain. Whether Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi seeks to retain Russian territory to trade in future negotiations; to divert Russian forces from the Donetsk battlefields, where they have been advancing; or to make Russians feel some of the pain Ukrainians have since 2022, his ability to achieve one or more of these goals remains uncertain.
Once Russia mounts a persistent counterattack, will Ukraine muster the logistical capabilities, troop numbers, firepower, and air defenses required to sustain its soldiers in Kursk? Will Russia be forced to redeploy forces from Donetsk (so far it has used reserves and troops from the Kharkiv and Kupiansk fronts)? Or will Russia foil Ukraine’s Kursk offensive, transforming the current euphoria into a blame-game in which Ukraine’s leaders are attacked for dispatching to Kursk troops that were badly needed elsewhere? It’s too early to tell.
Peter Rutland, professor of government and the Colin and Nancy Campbell Chair for Global Issues and Democratic Thought at Wesleyan University
The Ukrainian incursion is the most significant challenge to face Putin since the Wagner mutiny of June 2023. It highlights one of the central claims of Evgeny Prigozhin — the corruption and incompetence of the Russian army's commanders, who did not foresee the attack, and who have been slow to expel the Ukrainian invaders. It refutes some of the central themes in Kremlin propaganda — that Russia is winning the war, that Putin is protecting Russians from a hostile world. It has also called the bluff on Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons in the event of escalation of the fighting onto Russian territory. Irrespective of the military costs and benefits of the raid, there is no doubt that it has been a political coup for Kyiv.
Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Yale University
The Ukrainian incursion into Russia is a sideshow intended to bolster Ukrainian morale and give the West confidence to keep backing Kyiv, but it will not affect the outcome of the war. Ukrainian forces have reportedly seized about 1000 square kilometers of poorly defended Russian territory. Russia’s total land mass is more than 17 million square kilometers, which means that Ukraine now “controls” 0.00588% of Russia.
By comparison, Russian forces currently occupy roughly 20 percent of Ukraine and the failed Ukrainian offensive last summer shows how difficult it will be for Ukraine to retake these areas. The incursion may be a minor embarrassment for Putin (as well as additional evidence that Russia is far too weak to invade the rest of Europe), but Ukraine’s fate will be determined by what happens in Ukraine, and not by this operation.
Responsible Statecraft is a publication of analysis, opinion, and news that seeks to promote a positive vision of U.S. foreign policy based on humility, diplomatic engagement, and military restraint. RS also critiques the ideas — and the ideologies and interests behind them — that have mired the United States in counterproductive and endless wars and made the world less secure.
The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
烏克蘭攻入俄境之欺敵夠夠 -- Kim Barker等
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請至原網頁查看相關圖片與視頻。
Deception and a Gamble: How Ukrainian Troops Invaded Russia
Planned in secrecy, the incursion was a bold move to upend the war’s dynamics and put Moscow on the defensive — a gambit that could also leave Ukraine exposed.
Kim Barker/Anton Troianovski/Andrew E. Kramer/Constant Méheut/Alina Lobzina/Eric Schmitt/Sanjana Varghese, 08/14/24
The scenes were decidedly Russian. A Gazprom facility. Flags with the country’s signature three horizontal stripes of white, blue and red. A Pyatyorochka supermarket.
The soldiers posting the videos, verified by The New York Times, were Ukrainian, almost giddily showing off just how easily they had pushed over the border and through Russian lines of defense in the past week.
In the Russian town of Sverdlikovo, a Ukrainian soldier climbed onto another’s shoulders, broke off the wooden post anchored to a town council building and threw the Russian flag to the ground. In Daryino, a town five miles to the west, other soldiers also grabbed a Russian flag. “Just throw it away,” a Ukrainian soldier said, grinning, as another flexed his muscles.
On Aug. 6, Ukraine launched an audacious military offensive, planned and executed in secrecy, with the aim of upending the dynamics of a war it has appeared to be losing, town by town, as Russian troops have ground forward in the east. The operation surprised even Kyiv’s closest allies, including the United States, and has pushed the limits of how Western military equipment would be permitted to be used inside Russian territory.
For Russia, it was a moment nearly as shocking as the mercenary Yevgeny V. Prigozhin’s march on Moscow in June 2023: the vaunted security state that President Vladimir V. Putin had built crumbled in the face of the surprise attack, failing in its basic task of protecting its citizens. And the unwritten social contract that has largely accompanied Mr. Putin’s 30-month campaign — that most Russians could get on with their normal lives even as he waged war — was cast into question anew.
Mostly on the defensive since a failed counteroffensive last year, Ukraine has pushed seven miles into Russia along a 25-mile front and taken dozens of Russian soldiers as prisoners, analysts and Russian officials say. The governor of Russia’s Kursk region said on Monday that Ukraine controls 28 towns and villages there. More than 132,000 people have been evacuated from nearby areas, Russian officials said.
“Russia brought war to others, and now it is coming home,” President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said in his Monday night address.
This offensive is a major gamble, especially since Russia dominates much of the frontline in Ukraine and has made significant inroads in the east. If Ukrainian troops are able to hold territory, they could stretch the capacity of Russian troops, deliver a major embarrassment for Mr. Putin and get a bargaining chip for any peace negotiations. But if Russia manages to push Ukrainian troops out of Kursk and simultaneously move forward in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian military leaders could be blamed for giving the Russians an opening to gain more ground, particularly in the Donetsk region.
U.S. officials told The Times they were given no formal heads-up about the high-risk mission — possibly because Ukrainian officials feared the Americans would try to persuade Ukraine to call it off, possibly because of Ukraine’s obsessive concern over leaks. Ukraine was also using American-supplied vehicles, arms and munitions, despite President Biden’s caution in May that Ukraine could only use American-made weapons inside Russia for limited self-defense strikes.
U.S. officials have said that Ukraine’s cross-border offensive didn’t violate that policy. “They are taking actions to protect themselves from attacks,” Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon’s deputy press secretary, said on Thursday.
Ukrainian officials have remained tight-lipped about the mission, including whether they intend to hold ground or fall back to defenses on their side of the border. Mr. Zelensky only acknowledged the operation publicly for the first time on Saturday. Ukrainian soldiers said they didn’t know the plan in advance. Military analysts who spend their days tracking the war said they were surprised.
“This is a good example of how a modern successful operation requires extreme operational security measures and deception,” said Pasi Paroinen, an analyst from the Black Bird Group, a Finland-based organization that analyzes battlefield footage. He added that if analysts couldn’t detect it, the Russians might not be able to either.
A quiet buildup
There were hints of what was to come.
Maps of the battlefield compiled by independent analysts show that soldiers from brigades long fighting in the east had moved discreetly into Ukraine’s Sumy region, just across the border from Kursk. A drone battalion from the 22nd Mechanized Brigade, which for nearly a year had defended the beleaguered frontline town of Chasiv Yar, was spotted near the border in mid-July. Troops from the 82nd Air Assault Brigade, engaged in fierce combat near Vovchansk in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, also shifted to the area. So did soldiers from the 80th Air Assault Brigade, which was at the forefront of fighting in the Kharkiv region this spring.
A few Russians noticed. A report was submitted to Russian military leadership about a month before the attack saying that “forces had been detected and that intelligence indicated preparations for an attack,” Andrei Gurulyov, a prominent member of Russia’s Parliament and a former high-ranking army officer, said after the incursion.
“But from the top came the order not to panic, and that those above know better,” Mr. Gurulyov lamented on national television.
Any movement could have been misconstrued as a new defensive posture. The Ukrainian Army sometimes splits brigades into smaller battalions scattered across the battlefield, and Sumy has long been rumored as a place where Russia might try opening a new front.
Few expected Ukraine to be able to launch a new offensive. Ukrainian brigades were running low on ammunition. Even as new weapons started arriving this spring and summer from the West, an almost fatalistic mood had taken hold of many Ukrainians, that they were losing ground in the east, foot by foot.
Ukraine shuffled parts of brigades into the Sumy area under the pretenses of training and picking up new equipment, said one brigade’s deputy commander, Lt. Col. Artem, who asked to be identified only by his first name and rank, in keeping with military protocol.
Heavy weaponry moved in. Soldiers piled into houses. The Ukrainians hid in plain sight. Officers were told to avoid wearing military uniforms when entering towns and cities so they didn’t draw attention, said one officer, who identified himself by his call sign, “Tykhyi,” in keeping with military protocol.
Some residents noticed the buildup. “Maybe they were reinforcing the border, or maybe building something?” said Elena Sima, the head of the Yunakivka district, about five miles from the border. “Everybody was guessing.”
In the village of Khotyn, the rumble of heavy, tracked vehicles woke up Natalya Vyalina, a 44-year-old kindergarten teacher, several nights in a row. She assumed others heard it, too. But in the village, she said, “nobody said anything.”
Even within the army, many were kept in the dark. Tykhyi — which means “quiet one” in Ukrainian — said some units were told of their mission only at the last moment.
On Aug. 3, Colonel Artem said, his brigade commander summoned senior officers to a meeting on the side of a forest road to announce the mission’s goals. To divert Russian troops to help fellow soldiers fighting in the eastern Donbas region. To push Russian artillery out of range of Sumy. To demoralize the Russians by showing their intelligence and planning failures.
‘Difficult challenges ahead’
The Ukrainian military hadn’t tried a serious push into Russia since the beginning of Moscow’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Commandos had made quick forays across the border, one in May 2023 and another this March. They were claimed by two shadowy paramilitary groups with ties to Ukraine: the Russian Volunteer Corps and the Freedom of Russia Legion.
Away from the fighting, the Kursk region posed an easier target than elsewhere along the 600-mile front in the east and south of Ukraine. It had fewer anti-armored vehicle ditches, fewer of the anti-tank pyramid obstacles known as dragon’s teeth and fewer manned fighting positions, said Brady Africk, an American analyst who maps Russia’s defenses. Russia also appeared to have sown fewer mines in the Kursk region than in occupied Ukrainian territories.
“Russia’s fortifications in Kursk are less dense than in other areas where Russian forces have built formidable defenses, such as in the south,” Mr. Africk said.
Just before noon on Aug. 6, Russian authorities claimed about 300 soldiers, more than 20 armored combat vehicles and 11 tanks from Ukraine’s 22nd Mechanized Brigade had crossed into the country. But those initial reports were greeted with a shrug. Disinformation and propaganda have become another kind of front in this war, and no one thought such an incursion made any tactical sense.
Hundreds more Ukrainian forces surged forward, breaching border checkpoints and pushing through two lines of defense. With fewer mines and fewer anti-military obstacles, Ukrainian mechanized brigades moved quickly.
Oleksandr, a Ukrainian infantry soldier who declined to give his last name, citing military security protocols, said many Russian soldiers fled as the Ukrainians pushed forward. Eight Russian soldiers surrendered at one checkpoint, he added.
Early Wednesday, senior U.S. officials woke up to a shock: They learned that more than 1,000 regular Ukrainian Army forces had crossed the border the day before, equipped with mobile air defenses and electronic-warfare equipment to jam Russian radar. Some were driving in armored vehicles sent by Germany and the United States. The soldiers appeared to be planning for an extended fight.
As late as Thursday, U.S. officials said, they were still seeking clarity from Ukrainian officials on the operation’s logic and rationale. Since then, Ukrainian leaders have briefed senior U.S. civilian officials and top military commanders on their goals.
The American officials said they were surprised at how well the operation has gone so far, but were skeptical that the Ukrainians could hold onto their gains. And in making the incursion, they said, Ukraine has created new vulnerabilities along the front where its forces are already stretched thin.
Videos show Ukrainian forces may have faced resistance at times, although there is not visual evidence of widespread losses.
Outside the Russian village of Kremyanoye, a video filmed by a Russian soldier shows Russian soldiers ransacking a captured Ukrainian armored vehicle, and taking away what appeared to be ammunition and other supplies. In another video filmed a few hundred meters away, a Russian soldier tried to rip a Ukrainian flag patch from the uniform of a dead soldier lying in the grass. Other footage, posted on Telegram by Russia’s Ministry of Defense, appeared to show Russian forces firing on a Ukrainian brigade around the Kursk region.
“We all have joy in our hearts,” the Ukrainian soldier, Oleksandr, said in a phone interview at 5 p.m. on Thursday, from somewhere inside Russia. “But we realize that there are still difficult challenges ahead.”
Some Ukrainian troops haven’t been able to stop themselves from publicizing their moves. They’ve posted videos and selfies from Russian towns like Sudzha or villages like Poroz and Dmitriukov, bragging about how they have finally taken the fight to Russia.
Outside a Pyatyorochka store in Sudzha, about six miles from the Russian border, one Ukrainian soldier said that a Ukrainian supermarket chain, ATB, was much better. “Glory to Ukraine,” he said in a video, which like others were verified by The Times. “No Pyatyorochka, ATB will be here soon.”
Four Ukrainian soldiers posed outside a nearby Gazprom facility, the Russian state-owned gas monopoly.
“From Sudzha, our news is as follows: The town is controlled by the armed forces of Ukraine,” one said, holding a rifle and standing in front of three soldiers brandishing a blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flag. “Peace in the town. All houses are intact.” He added: “I wish everyone a peaceful sky.”
One video filmed by Ukrainian forces showed Ukrainian armored vehicles gliding along roads and through open fields in the Kursk region. Another showed a convoy of a dozen or so burned Russian vehicle husks near the town of Rylsk, some 20 miles inside Russian territory. Bodies could be seen in the back of some trucks.
About three days after the incursion began, a Ukrainian strike destroyed an apparent munitions depot at Russia’s Lipetsk military airfield in the neighboring region.
Whether or not the strike was directly related to the ground advance, “Ukraine’s Kursk campaign de facto benefits,” said George Barros, an analyst with the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War.
A haphazard evacuation
For Russians near the border, the incursion arrived with loud booms. Roman, 49, a government worker who insisted on anonymity because he feared repercussions for speaking to a Western news outlet, said shelling woke him at 3:30 a.m. in his village outside Sudzha on Aug. 6, the first day of Ukraine’s incursion.
The next day, he and his wife drove to Kursk, the regional capital, because they knew their daughter’s school wouldn’t soon reopen. That night, they returned to evacuate their parents. They drove on side roads with their headlights off, stopping repeatedly to listen for drones.
Roman said people inundated him with requests for help reaching their relatives. He and others said the incursion appeared to have come as such a shock to the authorities that residents had to rely on each other.
A Sudzha resident named Ivan, 34, said in a text exchange Thursday that he was trying to evacuate residents. Later in the day, he wrote that he was in the hospital. His car had been hit by shelling while leaving Sudzha, home to around 6,000 people. And he had learned that the coffee shop where he worked had been damaged in the fighting.
“We’ve all been ditched,” Ivan said, also insisting on anonymity. “People are helping with whatever they can. The government doesn’t care.”
On Monday, the governor of Kursk said more than 100 civilians had been injured and a dozen killed, although the figures could not be independently verified.
The Times reviewed several satellite images captured since Aug. 6 that showed at least two dozen structures were damaged or destroyed in Sudzha and a neighboring village, Goncharovka, including homes, an apartment building, a gas station and support buildings of an arts school.
As the incursion expanded, the city of Kursk — whose name evokes for many Russians the enormous World War II tank battle nearby in which the Soviets stopped the German advance — filled with people fleeing the fighting. They lined up for help at aid centers set up by charity groups, Yan S. Furtsev, 38, an independent political activist in the city, said in an interview.
Nerves were frayed, he said, by shaky cellphone service and incessant air-raid warnings. Buses stopped when the sirens sounded. Those who couldn’t afford taxis were walking to work or relying on strangers for rides.
Whether the incursion would change people’s views on the war was another matter. On state television, the Kremlin played down the significance of the offensive, rather than casting it as a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“There are a lot of different opinions” about the war, Mr. Furtsev said. “But as for what people think, everyone believes that this is a tragedy.”
Michael Schwirtz, Adam Entous, Dzvinka Pinchuk, Evelina Riabenko, Aric Toler, Christoph Koettl contributed reporting. Axel Boada contributed video production.
Kim Barker is a Times reporter writing in-depth stories about national issues. More about Kim Barker
Anton Troianovski is the Moscow bureau chief for The Times. He writes about Russia, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. More about Anton Troianovski
Andrew E. Kramer is the Kyiv bureau chief for The Times, who has been covering the war in Ukraine since 2014. More about Andrew E. Kramer
Constant Méheut reports on the war in Ukraine, including battlefield developments, attacks on civilian centers and how the war is affecting its people. More about Constant Méheut
Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times, focusing on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism issues overseas, topics he has reported on for more than three decades. More about Eric Schmitt
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
烏克蘭地面部隊入侵俄國本土 - Nick Paton Walsh
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
孤注一擲乎？鋌而走險乎？總之，政略意義大於戰略。
Why Ukraine’s generals may have rolled the dice on an incursion into Russia
Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, 08/08/24
(CNN) -- Kyiv needed a win, but not a gamble.
Ukraine’s decision to launch a large amount of its scant military resources across the border into Russia - in pursuit of headlines but, thus far, an unclear strategic objective – marks a moment of either desperation or inspiration for Ukraine. And it does perhaps herald a new phase of the war.
Not because incursions into Russia by Ukraine are somehow new – they have been happening for over a year, mostly by Russian citizens, fighting for Ukraine with obvious Ukrainian military assistance but no official, public role.
It feels new because this is, according to Russia at least, the regular Ukrainian army mounting an attack on Russia, and a rare roll of the dice by a Ukrainian top brass whose movements have been criticized mostly in the last 18 months as being too slow and conservative.
On Tuesday, Kyiv took badly needed resources and fresh troops and launched them well inside Russia. The immediate effect satisfied two needs: a headline that involved Russian embarrassment and Ukrainian forward motion, and another that Moscow’s troops should scatter to reinforce their borders. After weeks of bad news for Kyiv, in which Russian forces have slowly but inexorably moved towards the Ukrainian military hubs of Pokrovsk and Sloviansk, Moscow is left scrambling to shore up its most essential front line – its own border.
But even as Kyiv declined to say anything Wednesday about what Russian President Vladimir Putin had called a “major provocation,” the wisdom of this gamble was openly questioned by some Ukrainian observers.
There may be a larger strategy at play here. Sudzha, now at least partially under Ukrainian control, is next to a Russian gas terminal, right on the border, which is key to supplying gas from Russia, via Ukraine, to Europe. That arrangement is said to close end in January, and this may be a bid to curtail a lucrative source of funding for Moscow that has angered Kyiv since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. (As of Thursday, there were no public indications of gas supplies being affected).
Yet until the wider importance of this incursion emerges, there remains a huge question mark over the strategic goals of Oleksandr Syrskyi, the comparatively new commander of Ukraine’s forces. Splits in his command have simmered into public view recently, with younger subordinates questioning Syrskyi’s willingness to endure significant casualties in frontline battles of attrition, in which Russia’s superior manpower usually prevails.
It is a Soviet mindset, and Syrskyi is from that era. But those dying or returning home as amputees are often from a younger generation who value dexterity and guile perhaps more than brute persistence.
Ukraine has for months exceled at targeting – often with what appears to be Western help – Russia’s internal infrastructure, chewing up runways, naval bases, and oil terminals in a bid to cause long-term damage to Moscow’s economy and war machine. But this is different: It is sending a large ground force miles into enemy territory, where Ukrainian supply lines are more fraught and objectives are by definition tougher to pursue.
The move comes at a time when the Ukrainian effort has begun to see a concrete benefit from Western weapons finally arriving.
F-16 fighter jets are new to the front lines but may be able to dent Russia’s withering air supremacy in the coming months. That could mean fewer gliding bombs hitting Ukrainian frontline troops and fewer missiles terrorizing Ukraine’s urban communities. Ammunition remains a problem for Kyiv, according to some accounts, but surely Western supplies may eventually plug that gap.
So why this high-risk move now? If we look beyond the immediate positive news cycle for President Volodymyr Zelensky, other goals emerge. For the first time in the war, talk of talks has begun. Russia may be invited to attend the next peace conference held by Ukraine and its allies. The proportion of Ukrainians who approve of negotiations, while a minority, is marginally growing. And the possibility of a Trump presidency is glowering above Kyiv.
US Vice President Kamala Harris may retain the same steadfastness as President Joe Biden over Ukraine. But it is important to remember that Western foreign policy is a fickle and easily exhausted beast. NATO’s persistent backing for Ukraine is an outlier. And as the war edges towards its fourth year, questions about how this ends will grow louder.
Is there any real merit to Ukraine fighting and dying with no real prospect of retaking occupied territory from Moscow? Does Russia want an indefinite grind forward, in which it loses thousands of men for hundreds of yards’ advance, and sees its wider military capability slowly worn down by longer-range Ukrainian strikes?
With the prospect of a negotiated settlement now less distant, both sides will scramble to improve their battlefield position before sitting down at the table. It is unclear if Ukraine’s move into Kursk is motivated by that, or a simple move to inflict damage where the enemy is weak.
But it marks a rare and substantial gamble with Kyiv’s limited resources, and so may herald the Ukrainians’ belief that greater change is ahead.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
千呼萬喚始出來--Bloomberg News
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
It’s about time！
China Seizes Chance to Play Peacemaker in Ukraine Before US Vote
* Kyiv bracing for US retreat in support after November election
* Beijing bolstering influence abroad as it counters Washington
Bloomberg News, 07/30/24
(Bloomberg) -- Chinese President Xi Jinping is stepping up efforts to position himself as a peacemaker for ending Russia’s war in Ukraine, despite growing criticisms from the US and Europe that Beijing is propping up the Kremlin’s battlefield efforts.
With Moscow and Kyiv facing pressure at home and abroad to find a way to end the war, China last week hosted its first senior official from Ukraine since the conflict began in 2022. While Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba the time was “not yet ripe” for peace talks, he said both sides were now signaling a willingness to negotiate.
Beijing followed up that outreach on Sunday by dispatching its special envoy Li Hui to Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia to “build up conditions to resume peace talks” — countries that have also skipped imposing US-led sanctions on Russia.
The flurry of activity underscores Xi’s ambition to forge a bigger diplomatic role at a time when Kyiv — and the broader European region — are bracing for a dramatic shift in foreign policy from their most important ally. Republican candidate Donald Trump has vowed to end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” if he wins the US election, while his vice presidential candidate, JD Vance, has been critical of support to Kyiv.
China hasn’t shifted its stance but sees a window to establish itself as a more powerful player, said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, adding that negotiations could take place as soon as this year.
“China is positioning itself for later rounds of talks,” he said, noting that departing President Joe Biden could also seek a deal to secure his foreign policy legacy. “Beijing wants its own share of the success and to position itself to play a constructive role and be celebrated for that.”
Beijing’s outreach comes after President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s government announced it was open to Russian leader Vladimir Putin attending a second peace summit it’s targeting before the US vote in November — a condition for Beijing’s attendance. While Xi has been touted as a potential negotiator for his ties with leaders on both sides, Beijing’s support for Russia has cast a long shadow over his government’s claims of neutrality.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni views Xi as an important stakeholder in Russia’s war in Ukraine if Trump pulls back support, Bloomberg earlier reported, citing people familiar with her thinking. The far right leader offered to broker better ties between Beijing and Europe in a Monday meeting with Xi.
That move comes after Zelenskiy stressed Beijing could become a “mediator” with the US in ending the war in an interview with Bloomberg News. Kyiv has maintained ties with Beijing even as the US and Europe have threatened Chinese banks with sanctions over bolstering the Kremlin’s war machine.
Xi is working to boost his peacemaker credentials in regions where Washington has traditionally played a larger role, as the world’s biggest economies jostle for global influence — a mission that has united China and Russia. Last year, Beijing surprised Washington by presiding over the closing of a detente between long-time rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Ukrainian foreign minister Kuleba’s visit came as Beijing gathered Palestinian rival factions to sign an agreement to establish an interim reconciliation government. While that deal — dubbed the “Beijing Declaration” by the Chinese side — lacked details for how deeply divided adversaries such as Hamas and Fatah would work together, it signaled Beijing’s rising influence abroad.
“China will play a more important role in peace negotiations, in peacemaking and talking — not just in the Middle East and Ukraine but even globally,” said Wang Yiwei, professor of international relations at Renmin University.
That’s because the Global South bloc of developing nations increasingly trusts Beijing’s approach to diplomacy, which vows not to interfere with domestic affairs, he added. Ukraine would see China’s endorsement of any peace plan as a sign of Russian commitment, Wang said.
Exemplifying China’s cautious approach to Ukraine, however, Kuleba’s meetings last week were confined to the southern city of Guangzhou rather than being centered in the capital, Beijing. The Ukrainian official followed those talks with a stop in Hong Kong, where he warned the Chinese city’s leader about enabling Russia’s efforts to avoid US sanctions.
Europe would likely want reassurances about further Russian expansionism from any Ukraine settlement. Fears are growing that Putin could extend his ambitions to Baltic states that are North Atlantic Treaty Organization members, risking a bigger conflict with the defense alliance.
Whether Beijing would be willing — or even able — to try to secure guarantees of Russian restraint is unclear, said Ja Ian Chong, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
“Right now, the optics suggest Beijing is using Ukraine for its own purposes rather than offering any practical steps toward peace,” he added.
--With assistance from Josh Xiao.
©2024 Bloomberg L.P.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
攻擊俄國境內效應 -- Samya Kullab
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
當我第一次看到「烏克蘭可以攻擊俄國本土」的報導時(本欄2024/06/01)，我天真的評論道：
「一旦戰火大幅度延燒到俄國本土，甚至莫斯科近郊，他絕對沒有好果子吃」(本欄2024/06/01)。
由下文可知，所謂「俄國本土」指的是離邊境20公里內的範圍。烏軍火力其實可以達到俄國境內100公里的範圍。執行這種綁手綁腳的戰略，主要原因當然是害怕普丁大大狗急跳牆，鋌而走險，動用某種形式的核武。另一個陰謀論的原因可能是：歐、美政府決策者認為，既然普丁莽漢自動踏進泥淖，何不讓他留在裏面打滾打個不停。
As U.S.-supplied weapons show impact inside Russia, Ukrainian soldiers hope for deeper strikes
SAMYA KULLAB, 06/22/24
KHARKIV REGION, Ukraine (AP) — Weeks after the decision allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied weapons for limited strikes in Russian territory, the country is having some success in halting Russia’s new push along the northeast front, but military commanders are clamoring for restrictions on long-range missiles to be lifted.
Deteriorating battlefield conditions forced the U.S. to permit Ukraine to use Western-supplied artillery and rocket systems to defend the eastern city of Kharkiv by targeting border regions where the Kremlin’s forces assemble and launch attacks. The impact was swift: Ukrainian forces pushed Russian positions back, won time to better fortify their own positions and even mounted small offensive actions.
But commanders said that without the ability to use long-range guided missiles, such as ATACMS, their hands are tied.
“We could target (Russian) brigade command points and the entire northern grouping, because they are located 100 to 150 kilometers from the front line,” said Hefastus, an artillery commander in the Kharkiv region who goes by his callsign. “Normal ammunition can’t get at them. With this kind, we can do a lot to destroy their centers of command.”
The Ukrainian commanders interviewed spoke on condition that their callsigns be used, in line with brigade rules.
The U.S. expanded the scope of its policy to allow counterstrikes across a wider region Friday. But the Biden administration has not lifted restrictions on Ukraine that prohibit the use of U.S.-provided ATACMS to strike inside Russian territory, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. The U.S. began providing Ukraine with long-range ATACMS earlier this year, but with rules, including that they cannot be used to strike inside Russia and must be used within sovereign territory, which includes land seized by the Russians.
That prevents attacks on airfields and military infrastructure in Russia’s deep rear, underscoring a common Ukrainian complaint that Western allies anxious about potentially provoking Russia are undermining Ukraine's ability to fight effectively.
Ukrainian officials are pushing U.S. allies to be able to strike particular high-value targets inside Russia using ATACMS, which can reach over 100 kilometers (62 miles).
“Unfortunately, we still cannot reach, for example, airfields and their aircraft. This is the problem,” Yehor Cherniev, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee on national security, defense and intelligence, said earlier this month. “That’s why we are asking (allies) to lift the restrictions to use long-range missiles against limited military targets in the territory of Russia.”
Since late May, Ukraine has been able to target Russian troops and air defense systems 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the border in the Kharkiv region. Moscow opened a new front in the region on May 10, capturing village after village in a sweeping advance that caught Ukrainian troops unprepared.
Though not a panacea, the move has greatly slowed Russia’s momentum, even allowing Ukrainian troops to make advances along the northeast border, including recently recapturing areas southwest of Vovchansk, according to local reports. Brigades there said high mobility army rocket systems, or HIMARS, were fired hours after permission was granted, destroying an air defense complex outfitted to launch the deadly missiles.
At the time, the stakes were high as Ukrainian military leaders anticipated another assault designed to divert troops from other intense battlegrounds in the Donetsk region. First Deputy Defense Minister Ivan Havryliuk told The Associated Press that at least 90,000 Russian troops deep in Russian territory were gearing up for a new assault.
“The HIMARS were not silent for the whole day,” Hefastus said, recalling the first hours when permission was granted to use the rocket systems. “From the first days, Ukrainian forces managed to destroy whole columns of troops along the border waiting for the order to enter Ukraine.”
“Before, we couldn’t target them. It was quite complicated. All warehouses with ammunition and other resources were located a 20-kilometer distance beyond what we could hit,” he said.
The dynamics shifted almost immediately, allowing Ukrainian forces to stabilize that part of the front line. Soldiers near a strategic area north of Kharkiv where fighting to push Russian troops back is ongoing said enemy troops had moved positions several kilometers back. Such claims could not be independently verified.
“Tactics have changed" as a result of Ukraine’s improved striking ability, said Kalina, a platoon commander for the Khartia Brigade. Before, they were only able to hit incoming infantry assaults; now, they can employ more artillery against Russian firing points.
The U.S. decision came in the 11th hour, after much lobbying by Ukrainian officials and right as troops were preparing for combat in anticipation of Russia opening a new front in the northeast.
Ukrainian officials are hoping to convince American allies to allow the use of ATACMS against specific targets.
“It seems pretty absurd when the enemy is so actively advancing on our territory and striking with all types of missiles and calibers at Ukrainian territory and we cannot strike back inside the enemy’s territory where they hold logistics and supplies,” said Lys Mykyta, the commander of a drone company in the 103rd Territorial Defense Brigade.
But Ukrainian officials said only desperate battlefield conditions are likely to convince American officials to walk back the restriction.
The renewed invasion of the Kharkiv region, which drew in precious Ukrainian reserves, pushed the U.S. to have a change of heart on allowing self-defense strikes in Russian territory, Cherniev said.
“Probably, the decision about the ATACMS will also be changed based on the situation on the ground,” he said. “I hope the decision will be made as soon as possible.”
Associated Press writers Volodymyr Yurchuk in Kyiv, and Aamer Madhani, Matt Lee and Tara Copp in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
Samya Kullab is an Associarted Press reporter covering Ukraine since June 2023. Before that, she covered Iraq and the wider Middle East from her base in Baghdad since joining the AP in 2019.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
扭捏作態？搭個台階？對口相聲？
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我昨天剛說過：「俄、烏戰爭持續下去對中國和習總個人都是大利多。從精打細算的角度看，或許中國坐山觀虎鬥是上上之策」(本欄2024/06/17評論)。
因此，耿爽副代表的宣示(請見上一篇報導)，可能在扭捏作態，興許是鱷魚眼淚，甚至於消遣參加瑞士和會諸國(本欄2024/06/17報導)。
我也曾說過：「我認為普丁不是一位莽夫，擺出這麼大的陣仗自有他的算計和目的。如果圖窮匕見時，他覺得這個bluff的勝算不大，他至少可以找習大大出面替他搭個漂亮的台階下。」
前些日子，美國眾院搞么蛾子導致援烏預算中斷，烏軍缺乏武器彈藥；加上兵員不足；俄軍一時轉敗為勝。但最近形勢逆轉：一方面歐洲各國驚覺事態嚴重，害怕普丁黑手伸進自己家園。另一方面，美國老百姓雖然懶得管烏國人民死活；但是，烏克蘭一旦失守，拜登勢必輸掉大選。這些是G7抗俄貸款(該欄2024/06/16)，美、烏雙邊十年安全協議，以及烏克蘭被容許攻擊俄國本土(本欄2024/06/01)；一系列事態的背景。
或許，普丁覺得是時候找個台階下了。
當然，也有可能是這種請況：中、俄兩好哥們暗暗得意，在那兒唱雙簧，說對口相聲。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
中國呼籲俄、烏盡速展開和議 -- 《南華早報》
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
請見下一篇評論。
China calls for Russia-Ukraine peace talks 'as soon as possible' after skipping Swiss summit that shunned Moscow
South China Morning Post, 06/16/24
China has called for direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine "as soon as possible" as it shunned a weekend gathering in Switzerland that aimed to boost international support for Kyiv's position.
"China calls on the parties to the conflict to demonstrate political will, come together, and start peace talks as soon as possible to achieve a ceasefire and halt military actions," Geng Shuang, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, told the United Nations Security Council on Friday.
He was speaking on the eve of the Summit for Peace for Ukraine at the Swiss resort of Burgenstock, an event to which Russia was not invited, and which 90 countries attended.
Beijing's absence from the two-day meeting, which was attended by more than 90 countries and focused on rallying support for Ukraine's peace proposals, has raised questions about China's self-proclaimed neutrality in the Ukraine war.
Ukraine invited China to the summit in January, but Beijing, which reaffirmed its commitment to the "no limits" partnership with Moscow last month, insisted any peace process would require Russian participation.
Geng's appeal was largely in line with China's own peace proposal unveiled a year ago, which was praised by Russia as an alternative to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's plan, but largely dismissed by the US and its allies.
During Friday's UN briefing on arms supplies to Ukraine, Geng defended China's "objectivity and impartiality" and accused the US of "spreading the lie that China has supported Russia in its war efforts".
"This is unacceptable ... It is an attempt to divert people's attention from the conflict and create differences," he said.
He said China "urges the US to stop using the Ukraine issue as an excuse to smear China and to impose unilateral sanctions and unreasonable suppression on Chinese companies".
White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said on the sidelines of the summit on Saturday that China's absence was probably a result of Russian pressure and was in line with Beijing's "supply of inputs for Russia's war machine".
"I presume they are not here because [Vladimir] Putin asked them not to come, and they obliged Putin," Sullivan told reporters in the Swiss mountaintop resort. "China has asserted that it stands for peace in Ukraine. A good way to have shown that would be to come here."
According to the Swiss government, more than 90 countries accepted the invitation to the two-day summit, which concludes on Sunday.
Top leaders from 57 countries, ranging from France, Germany and Japan to Argentina, Fiji and Qatar attended the summit, but US President Joe Biden skipped the gathering after the Group of 7 summit on Friday, sending Vice-President Kamala Harris.
India, South Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand also sent delegations, while Brazil attended as an observer.
Zelensky, who secured strong support at the G7, hailed the Swiss event's attendance rate and said it would be the start of a process to force Russia to end its aggression and secure peace.
"Even if they are not here today at the first summit, we have succeeded in [showing] the world that joint efforts can stop war and establish peace," he told reporters at the start of the meeting on Saturday.
Earlier this month Zelensky accused China of "working hard" to help Russia pressure smaller countries to skip the event, accusations Beijing denied.
A final communique, supported by the vast majority of the countries that attended the forum, said: "We believe that reaching peace requires the involvement of and dialogue between all parties." It also called for the "territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine" to be respected.
Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer cautioned that "without parts of Asia, Africa and South America, we will not be able to get the Russian Federation to change its mind".
Alexander Gabuev, director of the Berlin-based Russia Eurasia Centre of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X, formerly Twitter, that Beijing did not expect clear results from the event.
"The failure of the Swiss summit that Beijing anticipates may give China a shot to make itself a central player in diplomatic efforts, or at least pretend to be one," he wrote.
Ryan Hass, a China specialist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, tweeted that Beijing's view was that the Ukraine conflict was "far from a mutually hurting stalemate and thus isn't yet ripe for resolution. They don't view the Swiss as neutral. And they won't get drawn into a negotiation that Moscow refuses to join".
Copyright (c) 2024. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
「領土完整」必須是烏克蘭和平的基礎 -- JAMEY KEATEN
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
我完全了解：俄、烏戰爭持續下去對中國和習總個人都是大利多。從精打細算的角度看，或許中國坐山觀虎鬥是上上之策。不過，我不是搞政治的人；所以，「精打細算」也從來不是我的一碟菜。
80 countries at Swiss conference agree territorial integrity of Ukraine must be basis of any peace
JAMEY KEATEN, 06/16’24
OBBÜRGEN, Switzerland (AP) — Eighty countries jointly called Sunday for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine to be the basis for any peace agreement to end Russia’s two-year war, though some key developing nations at a Swiss conference did not join in.
The joint communique capped a two-day conference at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland marked by the absence of Russia, which was not invited, but that many attendees hoped could join in on a roadmap to peace.
About 100 delegations, mostly Western countries but also some key developing nations, were on hand for the conference — and experts were on watch to see how and if at all they might line up behind the outcome document.
Participants India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates — which were represented by foreign ministers or lower-level envoys — were among those that did not sign onto the final document, which focused on issues of nuclear safety, food security and the exchange of prisoners.
Brazil, an “observer” country, did not sign on but Turkey — which has sought to an intermediary between Russia and Ukraine — did.
The final document said the U.N. Charter and “respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty … can and will serve as a basis for achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.”
Viola Amherd, the Swiss president who hosted the event, told the final news conference that the fact that the “great majority” of participants agreed to the final document “shows what diplomacy can achieve."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the “first steps toward peace” at the meeting, and said the joint communique remains “open for accession by everyone who respects the U.N. Charter.”
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Union’s executive Commission, said the conference was “rightly” entitled “Path to Peace” because peace won’t be achieved in a single step.
“It was not a peace negotiation because Putin is not serious about ending the war. He is insisting on capitulation. He is insisting on ceding Ukrainian territory -- even territory that today is not occupied by him,” she said. “He is insisting on disarming Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to future aggression. No country would ever accept these outrageous terms.”
Analysts say the two-day conference will likely have little concrete impact toward ending the war because the country leading and continuing it, Russia, was not invited — for now. Russia's key ally, China, which did not attend, and Brazil have jointly sought to plot alternative routes toward peace.
The meeting also endeavored to return a spotlight to the war at a time when conflict in Gaza, national elections and other concerns have seized global attention.
The three themes of nuclear safety, food security and prisoner exchanges featured in the final statement. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said they amounted to “minimum conditions” for negotiations with Russia, alluding to how many other areas of disagreement between Kyiv and Moscow will be harder to overcome.
Qatar's prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, noted a day earlier how his rich Gulf country hosted talks with both Ukrainian and Russian delegations on the reunification of Ukrainian children with their families that has so far resulted in 34 children being reunited.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, speaking to reporters at the resort on Saturday, said it's “going to take work” and countries stepping up to build on efforts by nations like Qatar.
“It’s going to take a spotlight from the international community, not just from only voices from the United States or Europe, but from unusual voices as well to say what Russia has done here is more than reprehensible and must be reversed," he said.
The Ukrainian government believes that 19,546 children have been deported or forcibly displaced, and Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova has previously confirmed that at least 2,000 were taken from Ukrainian orphanages.
Montenegro Prime Minister Milojko Spajic told the gathering Sunday: “As a father of three, I'm deeply concerned by thousands of Ukrainian kids forcibly transferred to Russia or Russia-occupied territories of Ukraine.”
“We all at this table need to do more so that children of Ukraine are back in Ukraine,” he added.
Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.
Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
|
亓官先生所說的 ”The beginning of a big Storm in Europe！” 很可能不幸而言中。
我想俄烏戰爭的確到了圖窮匕見或見好就收的關鍵時刻。由於俄國「蠶食」戰略被識破，歐洲國家，尤其東歐諸國，已經意識到烏克蘭的勝、負就是「自己」的「存亡關頭」(1)。這是北大西洋公約會員國在言辭上節節升高(本欄2024/04/27、03/19、和02/29等貼文)，以及行動上步步為營的背景。
另一方面，普丁也沒閒著；不但陣前換將，更拉高虛聲恫嚇的分貝；擺出一副大不了魚死網破的姿態。不過，普丁如果再不找個台階下，一旦戰火大幅度延燒到俄國本土，甚至莫斯科近郊，他絕對沒有好果子吃。
在我看來，雙方都是穿了義大利高級皮鞋的大爺們，這些「小動作」不過是在上談判桌以前，必須玩的「誰先做慫蛋」遊戲。希望這不是我一廂情願；否則，一生碰上兩個世界大戰，也真他媽的夠衰了。
附註：
1. 這是我把這個概念用在國際政治脈絡的翻譯。此辭亦為心理學術語，可譯為「存在感困境」；不宜譯為「存在危機」。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
a big storm
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The beginning of a big Storm in Europe ！
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
等級：8
