New to Nutbox?

俄乌战争两周年:从双方视角看战争爆发的原因与现状

2 comments

cheva
76
2 months ago6 min read

昨天聊了聊俄乌开战两周年说了说从俄方的视角来看,这场战争爆发的原因,简单说就是泽连斯基为了加入欧盟准备军事解决乌东的分离主义势力结束内战状态。而俄罗斯普京领导的俄罗斯采取了先发制人的手段,全面入侵俄罗斯。而普京执意要保护乌东的亲俄分裂势力,也主要是为了迎合俄罗斯国内的大俄罗斯民族主义氛围,巩固自己的铁腕统治。而颜色革命后,上台的乌克兰新政权,也确实在做着同样的事情,就是推行仇俄宣传和去俄化。要塑造新的乌克兰民族主义。为此,甚至不惜利用和放纵历史上曾经与纳粹合流的乌克兰民族主义者,将他们奉为国父和英雄。所以,尽管西方的清乌媒体将乌克兰渲染成反抗侵略的正义一方。但其实乌克兰政权的做法也不过是为了维护自己的权力,并非完全出于本国人民利益的考虑率。因为一个负责任的政府应该奉行平衡和和平的外交,而不是一边倒的。尤其是乌克兰这种处在地缘战地缘政治交界现场的国家奉行。这种一边倒的政策,无疑是被对抗东的一方当做马前卒和炮灰。

当然,乌克兰的政客们认为他们能够从西方那里获得更多的利益。所以毫不介意将本国的民众作为牺牲的代价。比如最近就有乌克兰的政客议员表示,经过两年的残酷战争,乌克兰军队已经是西方国家中战斗力最强的军队了。如果美国的那些传统盟友畏手畏脚的话,乌克兰可以追随美国的话,伊朗、朝鲜甚至是中国,这已经把不顾民众死活干做西方政治势力,把马前卒的嘴脸写在脸上了。

这场战争按按普普是刚开始的设想,是一场类似冷战期间,苏联干预匈牙利和捷克斯洛克克那那快速速斩首式的行动。所以一开始普军甚至称之为特别军事事动动,不是直接宣宣战,但如这已已经续续两年的血腥战斗。不得不说,如果没有美国和为首的西方大力支持,但乌兰是是不可能坚持来来的。当这这是故事一方方面,而网上俄俄观点却认认为西上战战是战援助,是在在拱火而造成战争争争级的巨大风险。同时也也强了参战过人民的痛苦。应该说这又是一个罗生门,或者说这两个观点都是同时成立的。好,这里要说到在开展初期的那场重大的战役,也就是基辅保卫战。关于这场战役,同样存在着东西方两种盟的说法。因为在开战首日,俄军就采取了大胆的空中突击,用直升机攻降了空运空降部队占领了基辅附近的安东诺夫机场。但是乌军进行了比较顽强的抵抗用障碍物封锁了机场跑道,随后对机场发动炮击,导致后续的部队无法通过空运进场。俄军精锐的VDV空降部队坚守到增援部队,从陆地杀到。而另一侧的俄军则从东部边境苏美地区杀向基辅,以钳形攻势,合围基辅之势。

居然在这个过程中,乌军顽强抵抗,利用商业小型无人机监视战场,配合火炮对俄军进攻部队造成了很大的损失,但应该说没有完全遏制住俄军的进攻势头。而此时,俄乌双方其实是在边打边谈的,并且在土耳其达成了一个初步的停火协议,基本就是回到明斯克协议的框架之内。但是当时的西方看到媒体上俄军的表现比较狼狈,大量抛弃装备,损失也较大,认为不能这样轻易的停止战争。要继续打疼俄罗斯。

当然,作为西方世界老大美国不好跳出来说反对和平。这件事情主要是由当时的英国首相约翰逊来做的。从当时的新闻也可以看出,约翰逊是对泽林斯基表示,支持最积极的西方领导人,也是最早在战争期间访问基辅的。在他的鼓动下,如果乌克兰同意和俄罗斯共和,那么西方就会停止援助,于且也不会为乌克兰提供合约中所提到的安全保证。于是乌方在英国的怂恿下撕毁了协议。协议。草案达成后,俄罗斯也给自己找台阶下,都为了表达善意,从基辅周围撤军了。当然,从后期的战争表现来看,即使俄罗斯下决心攻克基辅也将付出相当惨重的代价。既然已经达成协议,就会下雨,也是理所当然的。但是在英国的但罗向乌克兰撕毁了协议,还暗上了参与谈判的代表。当然,这些叙事数都是俄方的观点,也无法验证真假。不过,普京确实在非洲领导人组团呼吁他停止战争时拿出过这份协议,并且说乌克兰不会遵守任何协议输,只能把它打输。这也说明政客们其实行事逻辑就是他们不用自己承担代价,再这样自己的民众输光之前,哪怕有一丝希望,他们也会一直赌下去,毕竟输的不是自己的钱,也是合乎逻辑的。


Yesterday I talked about the second anniversary of the war between Russia and Ukraine and said that from the Russian perspective, the reason for the outbreak of the war is simply that Zelensky is preparing a military solution to the separatist forces in eastern Ukraine in order to join the European Union and end the civil war. And Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, has taken a pre-emptive approach with a full-scale invasion of Russia. And Putin's determination to protect the Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine is mainly aimed at catering to the atmosphere of greater Russian nationalism in Russia and consolidating his iron rule. And the new Ukrainian regime that came to power after the color revolution is indeed doing the same thing, that is, promoting anti-Russian propaganda and de-Russification. To shape a new Ukrainian nationalism. To this end, the Ukrainian nationalists, who historically aligned themselves with the Nazis, were even exploited and indulged, as the fathers of the nation and heroes. So, despite the Western Ukrainian media portraying Ukraine as a righteous resistance to aggression. But in fact, the Ukrainian regime's actions are only to protect its own power, not entirely out of the interests of its own people. Because a responsible government should pursue diplomacy that is balanced and peaceful, not one-sided. This is especially true in a country like Ukraine that is at the geopolitical crossroads of a geopolitical war. This one-sided policy is undoubtedly treated as pawns and cannon fodder by the side against the East.

Of course, Ukraine's politicians think they can get more out of the West. So you don't mind sacrificing your own people. Recently, for example, Ukrainian politicians and parliamentarians said that after two years of brutal war, Ukraine's army is the most effective in the West. Ukraine could follow the lead of America if its traditional Allies, Iran, North Korea and even China, have put the face of being a pawn in Western politics at the cost of their people.

The war, as envisaged at the outset, was akin to the Soviet intervention in Hungary and the rapidly-decapitated operation of the Czech Republic during the Cold War. So at first the Prussian army even called it a special military operation, not a direct declaration of war, but such as this has been bloody fighting for two years. It has to be said that without the strong support of the United States and the West, but Ulan would not have persisted. While this is one side of the story, the online Russian view sees the Western war as war aid, which is creating a huge risk of war and conflict. It also enhances the suffering of the people who fought in it. It should be said that this is another Rashomon, or that both views are valid at the same time. All right, so I'm going to talk about the major battle that took place in the early stages, the Battle of Kiev. About this battle, there are also two versions of the alliance between East and West. Because on the first day of the war, the Russians launched a daring air assault, using helicopters to take down airlifts and airborne troops to seize Antonov airfield near Kiev. But the Ukrainian army put up stiff resistance, blocking the runway with barriers and then shelling the airport, preventing subsequent troops from getting in by air. The Russian army's elite VDV airborne troops held on to reinforcements, killing from the land. On the other side of the Russian army from the eastern border of the Soviet Union and the United States to Kiev, in a pincer attack, Kiev encircled the situation.

In this process, the Ukrainian army stubbornly resisted, used commercial small drones to monitor the battlefield, and coordinated artillery to cause great losses to the Russian offensive forces, but it should be said that it did not completely contain the offensive momentum of the Russian army. At this time, Russia and Ukraine are actually fighting while talking, and reached a preliminary ceasefire agreement in Turkey, basically returning to the framework of the Minsk agreement. However, at that time, the West saw the performance of the Russian army in the media was relatively embarrassed, a large number of equipment was abandoned, and the loss was also large, and they believed that the war could not be stopped so easily. Keep beating up on Russia.

Of course, as the leader of the Western world, the United States can not come out and say that it is against peace. This was largely done by the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It is also clear from the news at the time that Johnson was telling Zelinsky that he supported the most active Western leader and was the first to visit Kiev during the war. At his instigation, if Ukraine agreed to reunite with Russia, the West would cut off aid and would not provide Ukraine with the security guarantees that were part of the deal. So the Ukrainian side, egged on by the British, tore up the agreement. Agreement. After the draft was agreed, Russia also found an excuse to withdraw its troops from around Kiev as a gesture of goodwill. Of course, judging from the performance of the later war, even if Russia is determined to conquer Kiev, it will pay a considerable price. Now that an agreement has been reached, it will rain, and rightly so. But Daniel Rowe, who was in Britain, tore up the agreement with Ukraine and discredited the negotiators. Of course, these accounts are from the Russian side, and it is impossible to verify the truth. However, Putin did point to the agreement when a group of African leaders called on him to stop the war, and said Ukraine would not abide by any agreement and could only lose it. This also shows that the logic of politicians is that they do not have to bear the cost themselves, and before their own people lose out, even if there is a glimmer of hope, they will continue to gamble, after all, it is not their own money to lose, which is also logical.

Comments

Sort byBest