查看原文
其他

罗思义:美国倚重军事威胁将是长期趋势

罗思义 人大重阳 2022-04-25

点击蓝字关注我们

本文大概2240字,读完共需5分钟



作者罗思义(John Ross)系中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员、前英国伦敦市经济与商业政策署署长,本文刊于3月28日《环球时报》。英文版刊于3月25日Global Times.



美国试图利用军事实力来避免其经济实力相对衰落的地缘政治后果,其政策的核心战略目标是分离俄罗斯和中国。

美国威胁要将乌克兰纳入北约,引发乌克兰战争,这表明美国已经准备好在其侵略性的国际军事政策中跨越一个新门槛。此前,美国对武装力量远弱于自己的发展中国家采取过军事行动:南联盟(1999年)、阿富汗(2001年)、伊拉克(2003年)、利比亚(2011年)。但美国威胁要将北约扩大到乌克兰,它事先知道这项政策将影响到俄罗斯,这个拥有包括核武器在内的强大军事力量国家的最根本国家利益,这一举动明确越过了俄罗斯的红线。
1992年到2000年间,我住在莫斯科,因此我知道俄罗斯每个重要的政治观点。不管俄罗斯内部的其他分歧如何,都不会同意乌克兰加入北约,因为在距离莫斯科几分钟飞行时间的地方部署导弹,这对俄罗斯将是一个致命的军事威胁。因此,美国将军事威胁从针对发展中国家——这些威胁是不公正的,但没有直接引发世界大战的风险——升级到针对俄罗斯这样的大国。
有必要分析一下,是什么导致美国军事威胁的升级?这是暂时的,之后美国会恢复和平路线?还是美国政策的一个持续趋势?
这对所有国家都是一个关键问题,对中国尤其重要。比如,在升级对俄罗斯制裁的同时,美国还系统性地试图削弱一个中国政策。美国充分意识到,一个中国政策涉及中国最根本的国家利益,是美中关系的根本基础,放弃一中政策就是跨越中国的红线,这比试图将乌克兰纳入北约更危险。
推动美国这种军事政策不断升级的关键力量是显而易见的。美国已经永久失去压倒性的世界经济主导地位。即使单独就中国而言,美国也不再拥有压倒性的领先优势。按市场汇率计算,美国经济总量仍大于中国,但按实际价格水平也就是购买力平价来说,中国经济总量已经超过美国。
人们可能会认为,由于生产力和技术水平更高,美国经济实力仍然领先于中国,但华盛顿已经失去了其全球经济主导地位。到2021年,以购买力平价计算,美国只占世界经济总量的16%。在经济上,全球多极化时代已经到来。

所有国家面临的危险在于,尽管美国已经不可逆转地失去全球经济主导地位,但它还没有失去军事优势。美国经济和军事地位之间的这种差异,是它发动的“新冷战”和对苏联发动的“旧冷战”之间的根本区别。冷战中,美国和苏联的军事实力不相上下,但美国的经济规模比苏联大得多。美国当时的策略是试图将问题转移到经济领域。就算里根在20世纪80年代的军事建设也不是为了对苏联发动战争,而是为了让苏联参加军备竞赛,损害它的经济。因此,尽管局势紧张,但是当时的冷战没有变成热战。
目前美国的情况正好相反。美国的相对经济地位已经大大减弱,但它的军事力量却依然强大。美国就试图将问题转移到军事领域。这解释了它不断升级的军事政策,以及为什么这将是一个持续升级的趋势。有一个令人不寒而栗的历史类比。1912年,德军总参谋长毛奇发表臭名昭著的声明:“战争是不可避免的,而且越早越好。”在当时的德国看来,这是完全合理的。俄国和美国的经济增长速度超过德国,这不可避免地导致它们在军事上比德国更强大。因此,毛奇呼吁尽快开战。
这同样是来自美国的巨大现实危险。美国正试图利用军事实力来避免其经济实力相对衰落的地缘政治后果,这导致美国对战争手段使用的不断升级。这将直接影响到俄罗斯和中国。对美国的战争威胁而言,中俄的良好关系是一个强大的经济和军事障碍。因此,美国政策的核心战略目标是分离俄罗斯和中国,然后将它们各个击破,包括动用军事力量。
总之,美国从攻击发展中国家到越过俄罗斯等大国的红线,这种军事政策的升级,是由美国的整体局势决定的,它不是暂时的,而是还将继续下去。这意味着这种侵略性的军事政策也将针对中国。

以下为英文版

US economic downturn motivates its global military expansion

The US threat to bring Ukraine into NATO, which caused the Ukraine military conflict, signifies the United States has been prepared to cross a new threshold in its aggressive international military policy. Previously the US carried out military actions against developing countries with far weaker armed forces than itself - Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011). But the US threat to extend NATO into Ukraine was a policy which it knew in advance affected the most fundamental national interests of a country with strong military forces including nuclear weapons - Russia - therefore explicitly crossing Russia's "red lines."

As I lived in Moscow from 1992-2000, I knew every significant Russian political viewpoint,whatever their other differences, agreed that Ukraine's membership of NATO, placing missiles within a few minutes flying time to Moscow, would be a deadly military threat.

The US has therefore escalated military threats from those against developing countries - which are unjust but do not directly risk world wars - to aggression against great powers such as Russia.

Therefore, it is necessary to analyze what creates escalating US military aggression. Is it temporary, after which the US will resume a peaceful course? Or is it a permanent trend of US policy?

This is a key issue for all countries, but particularly important for China. In parallel with escalation against Russia, the US, for example, has systematically attempted to erode the one-China policy. The US is fully conscious that the one-China policy affects China's most fundamental national interests and is the fundamental basis of US-China relations, and that to abandon it crosses China's "red lines" in the way their attempt to incorporate Ukraine into NATO crosses Russia's.

The key forces driving this escalating US policy are clear. The US has permanently lost overwhelming world economic predominance. Even regarding China individually, the US no longer has an overwhelming lead. At market exchange rates, the US economy is still bigger than China but in realistic price levels, purchasing power parities (PPPs), China's economy is 18 percent larger than the US'.

It may be conceded that the US economy is still ahead of China, due to a higher level of productivity and technology, but the US has already lost its global economic predominance. By 2021, in PPPs, the US accounted for only 16 percent of the world economy - 84 percent of the world economy is outside the US. Economically the global era of multipolarity has already arrived.

The danger to all countries is that while the US has irreversibly lost global economic dominance, it has not yet lost military supremacy. This difference between the economic and military positions of the US marks the fundamental difference between the "new Cold War" and the "old Cold War" waged by the US against the USSR. In the old Cold War, the US and USSR's military strength was comparable, but the US economy was much larger than the USSR's.

Therefore, the US strategy was to shift issues onto an economic terrain. Even Reagan's military build-up of the 1980s was not intended to wage war against the USSR but to engage it in an arms race, damaging the Soviet economy. Consequently, despite tension, the Cold War never turned into a hot war.

The present US situation is the opposite. Its relative economic position has weakened greatly, but its military power is great. Therefore, the US attempts to move issues onto the military terrain. This explains its escalating military aggression and why it is a permanent escalating trend.

There is a chilling historical analogy. In 1912, German Chief of Staff Helmuth Von Moltke made the notorious statement "war is unavoidable and the sooner the better." This, from Germany's viewpoint, was entirely rational. At that time Russia and the US' economies were growing more rapidly than Germany's - inevitably leading them to becoming militarily stronger. Therefore, Moltke called for war as soon as possible.

This is, similarly, the present threat flowing from the US. The US is attempting to use military strength to avoid the geopolitical consequences of its relative economic decline - producing an escalating US use of war.

This directly affects Russia and China's relations. The scenario of Russia and China on good terms is a formidable economic and military obstacle to US threats of war. Therefore, the central strategic goal of US policy is to separate Russia and China - then the US will attack them individually including using military strength.  

In summary, US military escalation, from a willingness to attack developing countries, to preparedness to cross the red lines of a great power, such as Russia, is not temporary. It is determined by the overall situation of the US. It means this aggression will also be directed against China.

The Ukraine crisis naturally has unique features. But it is also the manifestation of an escalating US military policy that is bound to continue.


推荐阅读

贾晋京:世界离下一次“大萧条”还有多远?

前驻美参赞何伟文:借俄乌冲突诬陷中国,美国意在阻挠促和

中行原副行长:美国真敢冻结或没收中国的储备资产吗?

吴晓求新学期金融第一课:向着心中的目标前行

// 人大重阳    

/// 

RDCY

中国人民大学重阳金融研究院(人大重阳)成立于2013年1月19日,是重阳投资向中国人民大学捐赠并设立教育基金运营的主要资助项目。


作为中国特色新型智库,人大重阳聘请了全球数十位前政要、银行家、知名学者为高级研究员,旨在关注现实、建言国家、服务人民。目前,人大重阳下设7个部门、运营管理4个中心(生态金融研究中心、全球治理研究中心、中美人文交流研究中心、中俄人文交流研究中心)。近年来,人大重阳在金融发展、全球治理、大国关系、宏观政策等研究领域在国内外均具有较高认可度。






扫二维码|关注我们


微信号|rdcy2013

新浪微博|@人大重阳

我知道你“在看”哟~



您可能也对以下帖子感兴趣

文章有问题?点此查看未经处理的缓存