Jeffrey Sachs Brings Real Politics to the EU Parliament

发布时间 2025-02-21 17:30:12 来源

杰弗里·萨克斯在欧洲议会上发表讲话，对美国过去三十年的外交政策进行了严厉的批判，认为它是众多冲突背后的驱动力量，并使欧洲丧失了连贯、独立的对外政策。他认为，美国在1991年苏联解体后变得胆大妄为，采取了一种单极世界观，无视国际义务和其他国家的安全关切，特别是俄罗斯的安全关切。萨克斯断言，美国的行动，包括北约东扩，没有真正考虑到俄罗斯的视角，并且根植于可以追溯到19世纪的长期项目。他强调了切尼、沃尔福威茨和布热津斯基等人物在塑造这一政策中的作用，他认为该政策基于有缺陷的博弈论，未能与对等方进行有意义的外交。他指出伊拉克战争是由内塔尼亚胡和美国五角大楼人物直接策划的一个冲突例子，强调了欧洲在这场冲突后未能发出统一的声音。他批评1994年正式决定将北约东扩作为一个包围俄罗斯并否认其影响力的项目，特别是通过控制进入黑海的通道。萨克斯强调，这一战略在多届美国政府的推动下，导致了维克托·亚努科维奇在乌克兰被推翻，而这背后有美国的资金和干预。他提到了维多利亚·纽兰被截获的电话录音，作为美国干预的证据。他声称，美国破坏了乌克兰和俄罗斯之间一项接近达成的协议，延长了冲突并导致了大量生命损失。关于当前的乌克兰战争，萨克斯认为，普京最初的意图是迫使泽连斯基就中立问题进行谈判，而一项接近达成的协议却被美国破坏。他强调，冲突的根源是美国希望保持北约，或者说是美国，远离俄罗斯边境。他批评美国在2002年放弃了反弹道导弹条约，并在波兰和罗马尼亚部署导弹系统，并在2019年退出了《中导条约》。他批评了“门户开放”政策，该政策被用来允许北约随心所欲地行动，而其邻国没有任何发言权。他说，美国不会容忍中国在安大略省拥有军事基地。萨克斯预测，由于特朗普希望减少损失，这场战争将很快结束，谈判可能导致领土让步、乌克兰保持中立，以及所有各方获得安全保障。他敦促欧洲发展自己的对外政策，直接与俄罗斯谈判，并将自身的安全利益置于优先地位，独立于美国。他鼓励欧洲领导人访问莫斯科，直接与他们的俄罗斯同行进行讨论。他呼吁欧洲投资于自身的安全结构和技术，而不是依赖美国。萨克斯主张采取务实的外交政策，理解俄罗斯的处境，避免“恐俄症”。他批评美国允许以色列游说团体主导其在中东的政策，并希望特朗普总统能将外交政策收回。在回答欧洲议会的问题时，萨克斯强调欧洲需要投资于其安全，迁移北约总部，并抵制北约，避免激怒其邻国。他赞扬了芬兰化，认为它使芬兰位居《世界幸福报告》榜首。他鼓励议员们积极主动地在欧洲缔造和平。

Jeffrey Sachs, speaking at the European Parliament, delivers a scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy over the past three decades, arguing it has been a driving force behind numerous conflicts and has left Europe without a coherent, independent foreign policy. He contends that the U.S., emboldened by the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, adopted a unipolar worldview, disregarding international obligations and the security concerns of other nations, particularly Russia. Sachs asserts that U.S. actions, including NATO expansion eastward, were undertaken without genuine consideration for Russia's perspective, and were rooted in a long-standing project dating back to the 19th century. He highlights the role of figures like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Brzezinski in shaping this policy, which he believes was based on flawed game theory and a failure to engage in meaningful diplomacy with counterparts. He points to the Iraq War as an example of a conflict directly concocted by Netanyahu and U.S. Pentagon figures, highlighting how Europe failed to speak with an unified voice after this conflict. He criticized the formal decision in 1994 to extend NATO eastward as a project to encircle Russia and deny it influence, especially by controlling access to the Black Sea. Sachs emphasizes that this strategy, pursued across multiple U.S. administrations, led to the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, fueled by U.S. funding and intervention. He refers to the intercepted phone call of Victoria Newland as evidence of U.S. meddling. He claims that a near agreement between Ukraine and Russia was scuttled by the U.S., prolonging the conflict and leading to a massive loss of life. Regarding the current war in Ukraine, Sachs argues that Putin's initial intention was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality, and that a near agreement was sabotaged by the United States. He stresses that the root of the conflict is the U.S. desire to keep NATO, or the United States, off Russia's border. He criticizes the U.S. for abandoning the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002, and placing missile systems in Poland and Romania and, in 2019, walking out of the INF treaty. He criticizes the "open door" policy, which has been used to allow NATO to go where it wants without its neighbors having any say. He says the United States would not stand for China having a military base in Ontario. Sachs predicts that the war will end soon due to Trump's desire to cut his losses, with negotiations potentially leading to territorial concessions, neutrality for Ukraine, and security guarantees for all parties. He urges Europe to develop its own foreign policy, negotiate directly with Russia, and prioritize its security interests, independent of the U.S. He encourages European leaders to visit Moscow to discuss with their Russian counterparts directly. He calls for Europe to invest in its own security structure and technology, and not rely on the U.S. Sachs advocates for a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia's situation and avoids "rusaphobia." He criticizes the U.S. for allowing the Israeli lobby to dominate its Middle East policy and hopes that President Trump would take foreign policy back. Answering questions from the European Parliament, Sachs emphasized the need for Europe to invest in its security, move NATO's headquarters and push back on NATO, and avoid antagonizing its neighbors. He praises Finlandisation as having led Finland to the top of the World Happiness Report. He encourages parliamentarians to be proactive in forging peace in Europe.

中英文字稿

The physics is about to give a talk here in the European Parliament. Enjoy it. When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the United States literally believed this is now a U.S. world, and we will do as we want. The wars in the Middle East, Serbia, the wars in Africa, these are wars that the United States led and caused. And this has been true for more than 40 years. Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period that I can figure out. No voice, no unity, no clarity. Only American loyalty. Please don't have American officials as head of Europe. Have European officials. Have a European foreign policy. You're going to be living with Russia for a long time, so please negotiate with Russia. Trump and President Putin will agree to end the war. Europe does all its great war mongering. It doesn't matter. The war is ending. Not one word is told to the American people about anything. Or to you, or by any of your newspapers these days.

这位物理学家即将在欧洲议会发表讲话，请大家欣赏。在1991年苏联解体后，美国真的相信这个世界已经属于美国，他们可以随心所欲。中东战争、塞尔维亚战争和非洲的战争，都是由美国主导和引发的。这种情况已经持续了四十多年。在此期间，我看不到欧洲有什么像样的外交政策：没有声音，没有团结，也没有明确立场，只有对美国的忠诚。请不要让美国官员成为欧洲的领导者，要有欧洲自己的官员和欧洲的外交政策。你们会长期与俄罗斯共存，所以请与俄罗斯进行谈判。特朗普和普京总统会同意结束战争。即使欧洲极力鼓动战争，这也无关紧要，因为战争即将结束。美国人民一无所知，而现在你们的报纸上也找不到任何相关信息。

This idea that Putin's reconstructing the Russian Empire, this is childish propaganda. So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. When Zelensky said in seven days, let's negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely. I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement. Why? Because the United States told them to. I begged the Ukrainians. And I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians. I'm not anti-Ukrainian, pro-Ukrainian completely. I said, save your lives, save your sovereignty, save your territory, be neutral. Don't listen to the Americans. I repeated to them the famous adage of Henry Kissinger. That to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Above all, I want to welcome Professor Jeffrey Sachs. And today, Jeff is probably the person in the world to speak up for peace, everywhere for peace, which is all these things combined.

普京重建俄罗斯帝国的说法只是幼稚的宣传。那么，这场战争是怎么开始的呢？普京在这场战争中的意图是什么？我可以告诉你，他的意图是什么。当泽连斯基在七天内表示愿意谈判时，我对这些细节非常了解。我飞往安卡拉，详细了解调解者的工作进展。乌克兰单方面离开了本已接近达成的协议。为什么？因为美国告诉他们这么做。我恳求乌克兰人。我与他们有过合作，我是支持乌克兰的，我对他们说，保护你们的生命、主权和领土，保持中立。不要听美国人的。我还引用了亨利·基辛格的名言：与美国为敌是危险的，但作为朋友则是致命的。最后，我特别欢迎杰弗里·萨克斯教授。今天，杰夫可能是世界上最有资格站出来为和平发声的人，为各地的和平而努力。这一切都结合在一起。

And therefore, I'm very happy that you're here. And I'm here since six months in this parliament, and forget somebody who worked for the UN. I was actually quite shocked to learn that this parliament speaks only about war. I think we have now to rethink what we want to do. And I hope the European Union will also come. Because I'm pro-European Union, we'll come to realize that we have also to see how we seek peace and how we manage peace and how we create, again, a peace for Europe. And Jeff might give us for these things some insight. Thank you very much.

因此，我很高兴你在这里。我在这个议会已经待了六个月，以前曾在联合国工作。我感到很震惊地发现，这个议会只讨论战争。我认为我们现在必须重新思考我们想做什么。我希望欧洲联盟也能意识到这一点。因为我支持欧盟，希望我们能够意识到，我们需要考虑如何寻求和平、管理和平，并再次为欧洲创造和平。也许杰夫能为我们提供一些见解。非常感谢。

I'd watch the events very close up in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Russia, very closely for the last 36 years. I was an advisor to the Polish government in 1989 to President Gorbachev in 1990 and 91 to President Yeltsin in 1991 to 1993 to President Kuchma of Ukraine in 1993, 1994. I helped introduce the Estonian currency. I helped several countries in former Yugoslavia, especially Slovenia. I've watched the events very close up for 36 years. After the Maidan, I was asked by the new government to come to Kiev, and I was taken around the Maidan, and I learned a lot of things firsthand. I've been in touch with Russian leaders for more than 30 years. I know the American political leadership close up. Our previous Secretary of Treasury was my macroeconomics teacher 51 years ago. Just to give you an idea. So we were very close friends for a half century.

在过去的36年里，我非常密切地关注东欧、前苏联、俄罗斯的动态。1989年，我是波兰政府的顾问；1990和1991年，我为戈尔巴乔夫总统提供建议；1991年至1993年，我担任叶利钦总统的顾问；1993和1994年，我协助了乌克兰的库奇马总统。我曾协助引入了爱沙尼亚货币，还帮助了前南斯拉夫的几个国家，特别是斯洛文尼亚。我一直密切关注时事整整36年。乌克兰迈丹革命后，新政府邀请我去基辅，我参观了迈丹广场，亲身学习了很多事情。我与俄罗斯领导人保持联系超过30年，对美国政治领导层也非常了解。我们之前的财政部长51年前是我的宏观经济学老师，举个例子，我们是半个世纪的密友。

I know all of these people. I just want to say this because what I want to explain in my point of view is not second-hand. It's not ideology. It's what I've seen with my own eyes and experienced during this period. In my understanding of the events that have fallen Europe in many contexts, and I'll include not only the Ukraine crisis, but Serbia 1999, the wars in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, the wars in Africa, including Sudan, Somalia, Libya. These are to a very significant extent that would surprise you, perhaps, and would be denounced about what I'm about to say. These are wars that the United States led and caused. And this has been true for more than 40 years now.

我认识这些人。我想说这个是因为我想表达的是我自己的观点，不是道听途说或意识形态。这是我亲眼看到并在这段时间亲身经历的。在我对欧洲发生的一系列事件的理解中，我不仅仅谈到乌克兰危机，还包括1999年塞尔维亚事件，中东的战争，如伊拉克、叙利亚，还有非洲的战争，如苏丹、索马里、利比亚。你可能会对此感到惊讶，甚至会对我所说的提出批评，但这些战争在很大程度上是美国主导并引发的。这种情况已经持续了四十多年。

What happened more than 30 years, I should say, to be more precise. The United States came to the view, especially in 1990, 1991, and then with the end of the Soviet Union, that the U.S. now ran the world, and that the U.S. did not have to heed anybody's views, red lines, concerns, security viewpoints, or any international obligations, or any UN framework. I'm sorry to put it so plainly, but I do want you to understand. I tried very hard in 1991 to get help for Gorbachev, who I think was the greatest statesman of our modern time. I recently read the archived memo of the National Security Council discussion of my proposal, how they completely dismissed it and laughed it off the table when I said that the United States should help the Soviet Union in financial stabilization and in making its reforms. And the memo documents, including some of my former colleagues at Harvard in particular saying we will do the minimum that we will do to prevent disaster, but the minimum, it's not our job to help.

这是发生在三十多年前的事情，可以说更精确地讲。尤其是在1990年、1991年，以及苏联解体之后，美国认为自己现在掌控了全世界，并且不需要顾及任何人的看法、底线、担忧、安全观点或国际义务，甚至不需要遵守任何联合国框架。很抱歉这样直白地说，但我希望你能明白。1991年时，我非常努力地想为戈尔巴乔夫寻求帮助，我认为他是我们现代最伟大的政治家。我最近读到了国家安全委员会对我提议的会议记录，其中详细记载了他们如何完全忽视并嘲笑我所提议的内容，当时我主张美国应该在金融稳定和改革方面帮助苏联。会议记录中，包括我曾在哈佛的几位同事特别提到，我们会做出阻止灾难的最低限度的努力，但仅此而已，这并不是我们的责任去帮助他们。

Quite the contrary, it's not our interest to help. When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the view became even more exaggerated. And I can name chapter and verse, but the view was we run the show. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and many other names that you will have come to know literally believed this is now a U.S. world, and we will do as we want. We will clean up from the former Soviet Union. We will take out any remaining allies, countries like Iraq, Syria, and so forth will go. And we've been experiencing this foreign policy for now essentially 33 years. Europe has paid a heavy price for this because Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period that I can figure out. No voice, no unity, no clarity, no European interests, only American loyalty. There were moments where there were disagreements and very, I think, wonderful disagreements especially in the last time of significance was 2003 in the Iraq War.

相反，我们并没有兴趣去帮助。在1991年苏联解体后，这种观点变得更加夸张。我可以详细讲述，但总的看法就是我们掌控一切。切尼、伍尔福威兹以及许多其他知名人物真的相信这是一个属于美国的世界，我们会随心所欲。我们会清理前苏联留下的问题，会解决掉任何剩余的盟友，像伊拉克、叙利亚等国家都会被扫除。我们实际上已经经历了33年的这种外交政策。欧洲为此付出了沉重代价，因为在此期间，我看不出欧洲有任何自己的外交政策。没有声音，没有团结，没有明确目标，没有欧洲利益，只有对美国的忠诚。在某些时刻，确实出现过分歧，我认为这些分歧非常重要，尤其是最近一次有重大意义的分歧是在2003年的伊拉克战争期间。

When France and Germany said we don't support the United States going around the U.S. Security Council for this war. That war, by the way, was directly concocted by Netanyahu and his colleagues in the U.S. Pentagon. I'm not saying that it was a link or mutuality. I'm saying it was a direct war. That was a war carried out for Israel. It was a war that Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Fife coordinated with Netanyahu. And that was the last time that Europe had a voice. And I spoke with European leaders then. And they were very clear and it was quite wonderful. Europe lost its voice entirely after that, but especially in 2008. Now, what happened after 1991 to get to 2008 is that the United States decided that unipolarity meant that NATO would enlarge somewhere from Brussels to Vladivostok, step by step. There would be no end to eastward enlargement of NATO. This would be the U.S. unipolar world.

当法国和德国表示不支持美国绕过联合国安理会发动这场战争的时候。顺便提一下，这场战争实际上是由内塔尼亚胡及其在美国五角大楼的同事直接策划的。我并不是说这是一种关联或相互关系。我是说这是一场直接的战争。这是为以色列进行的战争，由保罗·沃尔福威茨和道格拉斯·费斯与内塔尼亚胡协调策划。而那是欧洲最后一次有发言权的时候。我当时与欧洲领导人谈过，他们的态度非常明确，这种明确是让人欣慰的。在那之后，欧洲完全失去了声音，尤其是在2008年。现在，1991年到2008年间发生的事情是，美国认为单极世界意味着北约将从布鲁塞尔逐步扩大到符拉迪沃斯托克。对北约向东扩展没有尽头。这将是美国主导的单极世界。

If you play the game of risk as a child, like I did, this is the U.S. idea to have peace on every part of the board. Any place without a U.S. military base is an enemy, basically. Neutrality is a dirty word in the U.S. political lexicon. Perhaps the dirtiest word. At least if you're an enemy, we know you're an enemy. If you are neutral, you're subversive. Because then you're really against us. Because you're not telling us. You're pretending to be neutral. So this was the mindset, and the decision was taken formally in 1994, when President Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the east. You will recall that in February 7, 1991, Hans Dietrich Gensher and James Baker III spoke with Gorbachev.

如果你像我一样小时候玩过“风险”这款游戏，那么你会明白美国的理念是希望在地图的每个地方都实现和平。基本上，没有美国军事基地的地方就是敌人。在美国的政治词汇中，“中立”是一个肮脏的词，可能是最肮脏的词。至少，如果你是敌人，我们知道你是敌人；如果你是中立，那你是颠覆性的。因为这表明你实际上是反对我们的，只是没有表明立场。你假装中立。所以这是当时的思维模式，而1994年，克林顿总统正式批准了北约向东扩张的决定。你可能还记得，1991年2月7日，汉斯·迪特里希·根舍和詹姆斯·贝克三世与戈尔巴乔夫进行了交谈。

Gensher gave a press conference afterwards, where he explained, NATO will not move eastward. We will not take advantage of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. And to understand that was in a juridical context, not a casual context, this was the end of World War II being negotiated for German reunification. And an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward. And it was explicit, and it is in countless documents, and just look up the national security archive of George Washington University, and you can get dozens of documents. It's a website called What Gorbachev Heard About NATO. Take a look, because everything you're told by the U.S. is a lie about this. But the archives are perfectly clear.

根舍尔在之后的新闻发布会上解释说，北约不会向东扩展。我们不会利用华沙条约组织解体的机会。要理解这一点是在法律背景下，而不是随便说的，这是二战结束时为了德国统一进行的谈判。达成了一项协议，即北约不会向东扩展一寸。这是明确的，并且在无数文件中都有记录。只需查阅乔治·华盛顿大学的国家安全档案，您就能找到数十份文件。这个网站叫“戈尔巴乔夫听到的关于北约的消息”。看看吧，因为美国告诉你们的关于这件事都是谎言，但档案却清楚地记录了一切。

So the decision was taken in 1994 to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is a project, this is not one administration or another, this is a U.S. government project that started more than 30 years ago. In 1997, Zbigno Brzezinski wrote the Grand Chess Board. That is not just musings of Mr. Brzezinski, that is the presentation of the decisions of the United States government explained to the public, which is how these books work. And the book describes the eastward enlargement of Europe and of NATO as simultaneous events. And there's a good chapter in that book that says, what will Russia do as Europe and NATO expand eastward?

1994年，有人决定将北约扩展到乌克兰。这不是某一届政府的决定，而是美国政府开始于30多年前的一个项目。在1997年，兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基写了《大棋局》。这不只是布热津斯基的个人想法，而是美国政府向公众解释其决策的方式。这本书描述了欧洲和北约向东扩展为同时发生的事件。其中有一个章节很好地探讨了，当欧洲和北约不断向东扩展时，俄罗斯会怎么应对。

And I knew Zbigno Brzezinski personally, he was very nice to me, I was advising Poland, he was a big help, he was a very nice and smart man, and he got everything wrong. So in 1997, he wrote in detail why Russia could do nothing but exceed to the eastward expansion of NATO and Europe. In fact, he says the eastward expansion of Europe and not just Europe but NATO, this was a plan, a project. And he explains how Russia will never align with China. Unthinkable, Russia will never align with Iran. Russia has no vocation other than the European vocation, so as Europe moves east, there's nothing Russia can do about it.

我曾经与兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基有过个人接触，他对我非常友好。当时我在为波兰提供建议，而他给予了很大的帮助。他是一个非常友好和聪明的人，但他的判断完全错误。在1997年，他详细写道，俄罗斯除了接受北约和欧洲的东扩之外，别无选择。他指出，欧洲的东扩不仅是欧洲的计划，也是北约的一项计划。他解释称，俄罗斯绝不会与中国结盟，这是不可想象的；俄罗斯也绝不会与伊朗结盟。俄罗斯没有其他使命，只有欧洲的使命。因此，随着欧洲向东扩展，俄罗斯对此无能为力。

So says yet another American strategist. Is it any question why we're in war all the time? Because one thing about Americans, we always know what our counterparts are going to do, and we always get it wrong. And one reason we always get it wrong is that in game theory that the American strategists play, you don't actually talk to the other people. You don't have to go to the other side, you just know what the other side strategy is. It's wonderful, it saves so much time. You don't need any diplomacy.

又是一位美国策略家这么说。这还有什么疑问吗，为什么我们总是处于战争之中？因为美国人有一点，我们总是自以为知道对手会怎么做，但总是弄错。我们常常出错的一个原因是，在美国策略家玩的博弈论中，实际上不需要和其他人对话。你不需要去了解对方，只需要自以为知道对方的策略是什么。这真是太好了，省了很多时间，不需要任何外交。

So this project began and we had a continuity of government for 30 years until maybe yesterday perhaps. In the years of a project, Ukraine and Georgia were the keys to the project. Why? Because America learned everything it knows from the British. And so we are the wannabe British Empire. And what the British Empire understood in 1853, Mr. Palmer, Lord Palmerston, excuse me, is that you surround Russia in the Black Sea and you deny Russia access to the Eastern Mediterranean. And all you're watching is an American project to do that in the 21st century. The idea was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia as the Black Sea literal that would deprive Russia of any international status by blocking the Black Sea.

这个项目开始后，我们实现了大约30年的政府延续，直到可能是昨天才停止。在这个项目中，乌克兰和格鲁吉亚是关键。为什么呢？因为美国从英国学到了它所了解的一切，所以我们是在效仿大英帝国。而早在1853年，英国首相帕麦斯顿勋爵就明白了，通过包围俄罗斯的黑海并拒绝其进入东地中海，是限制俄罗斯的重要策略。我们现在看到的是美国在21世纪试图实现这一策略的项目。其想法是通过乌克兰、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、土耳其和格鲁吉亚等环绕黑海的国家，阻止俄罗斯获得任何国际地位，从而封锁黑海。

And essentially by neutralizing Russia as more than a local power. Brzezinski is completely clear about this. And before Brzezinski there was McKinder. And who owns the island of the world owns the world. So this project goes back a long time. I think it goes back basically to Palmerston. In 19, and again, I've lived through every administration. I've known these presidents. I've known their teams. Nothing changed much from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump won to Biden. Maybe they got worse step by step. Biden was the worst in my view. Maybe also because he was not compass mentus for the last couple of years.

将这段话翻译成中文，并尽量使其易读： “基本上，通过将俄罗斯中和为一个仅限于地方的力量。布热津斯基对此是完全明确的。在布热津斯基之前，还有麦金德。他们的理论是，谁控制了世界岛，谁就控制了世界。因此，这个计划可以追溯到很久以前。我认为可以追溯到帕麦斯顿。从19世纪，到现在，我经历了每一届政府。我认识这些总统，也认识他们的团队。从克林顿到布什，从奥巴马到第一次当选的特朗普，再到拜登，变化不大。也许一步步变得更糟。以我看来，拜登是最糟糕的，可能也是因为他在过去几年中精神状态不稳。”

And I say that seriously not as a snarky remark. The American political system is a system of image. It's a system of media manipulation every day. It is a PR system. And so you could have a president that basically doesn't function and have that in power for two weeks. And so he had to stand on a stage for 90 minutes by himself. And that was the end of it. Had it not been that mistake, he would have gone on to have his candidacy. Whether he was sleeping after 4pm in the afternoon or not. So this is actually the reality. Everybody goes along with it. It's impolite to say anything that I'm saying.

我说这番话是认真的，而不是讽刺。美国的政治体系是一个重视形象的体系。它每天都在通过媒体进行操控，是一个公共关系系统。因此，一个基本上无法正常运作的总统可以在位两周。他必须独自站在舞台上90分钟，那就是结束。如果不是因为那个错误，他可能会继续参选，无论他是否在下午四点后就睡觉。这才是真正的现实。人人都随波逐流，提出我这样的话题被视为不礼貌。

And I'm saying, I'm not going to say anything that I'm saying. Because we don't speak the truth about almost anything in this world right now. So this project went on from the 1990s. Bombing Belgrade 78 straight days in 1999 was part of this project. Splitting apart the country when borders are sacrosanct, aren't they indeed? Except for Kosovo. That's fine. Because borders are sacrosanct except when America changes them. Sudan was another related project. The South Sudan Rebellion. Did that just happen because South Sudanese rebelled? Or can I give you the CIA playbook?

我在说，我不会说我刚才说的话。因为现在我们几乎不在说真话。从20世纪90年代开始，这个项目就已经在进行之中。1999年，连续轰炸贝尔格莱德78天也是这个项目的一部分。拆分国家，即便边界应该是神圣不可侵犯的，不是吗？但科索沃的情况就没什么问题。因为边界是神圣不可侵犯的，除非美国想要改变它们。苏丹是另一个相关的项目，南苏丹的叛乱。难道这只是因为南苏丹的人民叛变吗？还是说我可以给你看一看中情局的操作手册？

To please understand, as grown-ups, what this is about. Military events are costly. They require equipment, training, base camps, intelligence, finance. That comes from big powers. That doesn't come from local insurrections. South Sudan did not defeat North Sudan or Sudan in a tribal battle. It was a US project. I would go often to Nairobi and meet US military or senators or others with deep interests in Sudan's politics. This was part of the game of unipolarity. The NATO enlargement, as you know, started in 1999 with Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. And Russia was extremely unhappy about it. But these were countries still far from the border. And Russia protested. But of course, to no avail.

请理解，作为成年人，我们需要了解其中的含义。军事事件是昂贵的。它们需要装备、训练、基地、情报和资金支持。这些并不是来自地方的叛乱，而是来自大国的支持。南苏丹并不是在一场部落战争中击败北苏丹或苏丹的，而是一个美国的项目。我常常去内罗毕，与对苏丹政治深感兴趣的美国军方人员、参议员或其他人会面。这是单极世界博弈的一部分。你知道，北约的扩展始于1999年，首批加入的有匈牙利、波兰和捷克共和国。俄罗斯对此极为不满，但这些国家距离边境尚远。俄罗斯进行了抗议，但当然没有效果。

Then George Bush Jr. came in when 9-11 occurred. President Putin pledged all support. And then the US decided in September 20th, 2001, that it would launch seven wars in five years. And you can listen to General Wesley Clark online talk about that. He was NATO Supreme Commander in 1999. He went to the Pentagon on September 20th, 2001. He was handed the paper explaining seven wars. These, by the way, were Netanyahu's wars. The idea was partly to clean up old Soviet allies and partly to take out supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Because Netanyahu's idea was there will be one state. Thank you. Only one state. It will be Israel.

然后，小布什在9·11事件发生时上任。普京总统承诺给予全力支持。而美国在2001年9月20日决定在五年内发动七场战争。你可以在网上听到韦斯利·克拉克将军谈论这个话题。他曾是1999年的北约最高司令官。2001年9月20日，他去了五角大楼，收到了一份文件，上面解释了这七场战争。这些战争在某种程度上是内塔尼亚胡的计划。其目的部分是清除旧的苏联盟友，部分是消灭哈马斯和真主党的支持者。因为内塔尼亚胡的想法是，最终会只有一个国家。谢谢。只有一个国家，那就是以色列。

Israel will control all of the territory. And anyone that objects, we will overthrow. Not we exactly are friend the United States. That's US policy until this morning. We don't know whether it will change. Now, the only wrinkle is that maybe the US will own Gaza instead of Israel owning Gaza. But the idea has been around at least for 25 years. It actually goes back to a document called Clean Break that Netanyahu and his American political team put together in 1996 to end the idea of the two-state solution. You can also find it online. So these are projects. These are long-term events.

以色列将控制所有领土。对这一点有异议的人，我们将推翻，不是我们，而是我们的朋友美国。这一直是美国的政策，直到今天早上。我们不知道政策是否会改变。现在唯一的变化可能是美国将拥有加沙，而不是以色列拥有加沙。但这个想法至少从25年前就已经存在。实际上，它可以追溯到1996年由内塔尼亚胡及其美国政治团队制定的一份名为“清晰突破”的文件，该文件旨在结束两国方案。你可以在网上找到这份文件。所以这些是一些长期的项目和行动。

These aren't, is it Clinton? Is it Bush? Is it Obama? That's the boring way to look at American politics as the day-to-day game. But that's not what American politics is. So the next round of NATO enlargement came in 2004 with seven more countries. The three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was pretty damn upset. This was a complete violation of the post-war order agreed with German reunification. Essentially, it was a fundamental trick or defection of the US from a cooperative arrangement, is what it amounted to because they believe in unipolarity.

这些问题不是关于克林顿、布什或者奥巴马吗？这是用日常竞技的方式来看美国政治的无聊方法。但这并不是美国政治的真正意义所在。接下来，在2004年，又有七个国家加入了北约。这些国家包括三个波罗的海国家、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、斯洛文尼亚和斯洛伐克。那时，俄罗斯非常不满。因为这完全违反了与德国统一时达成的战后秩序。从本质上来说，这被认为是美国从一个合作安排中背弃，或者说是一种根本性的策略欺骗，因为他们相信单极世界的理念。

So as everybody recalls, because we just had the Munich Security Conference last week in 2007, President Putin said, stop. Enough. Enough. Stop now. And of course, what that meant was in 2008, the United States jammed down Europe's throat enlargement of NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia. This is a long-term project. I listened to Mr. Sakashvili in New York in May of 2008, and I walked out called Sonia and said, this man's crazy. And a month later, a war broke out because the United States told this guy, we saved Georgia.

正如大家所回忆的那样，因为我们刚刚在2007年参加了慕尼黑安全会议。普京总统当时说，够了，停止吧。显然，这表明在2008年，美国强行推动北约在乌克兰和格鲁吉亚的扩张。这是一个长期的项目。我在2008年5月听了萨卡什维利先生在纽约的讲话后，出来就给索尼亚打电话说，这个人疯了。一个月后，战争爆发了，因为美国告诉他，我们拯救了格鲁吉亚。

And he stands at the Council on Foreign Relations, says, Georgia's in the center of Europe. Well, it ain't, ladies and gentlemen. It's not in the center of Europe. And the most recent events are not helpful for Georgia, for its safety, and your MP is going there, or MEP is going there, and European politicians, that gets Georgia destroyed. That doesn't save Georgia. That gets Georgia destroyed. Completely destroyed. In 2008, as everybody knows, our former CIA Director, William Burns sent a long message back to Condoleezza Rice, Niet means niet about expansion.

他在外交关系委员会上说格鲁吉亚位于欧洲的中心。女士们先生们，事实并非如此。它不在欧洲的中心。最近的事件对格鲁吉亚的安全没有帮助，而你们的国会议员或欧洲议会议员正在去那里，欧洲的一些政治家也在去，那样做会让格鲁吉亚遭受毁灭，不是拯救格鲁吉亚，而是让它彻底毁灭。2008年，大家都知道，我们以前的中央情报局局长威廉·伯恩斯给康多莉扎·赖斯发了一封长短信，说“不能就是不能”关于扩张的问题。

This we know from Julian Assange, because believe me, not one word is told to the American people about anything, or to you, or by any of your newspapers these days. So we have Julian Assange to thank, but we can read the memo in detail. As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010 on the platform of neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know, I was there during these years. What Russia was negotiating was a 25-year lease to 2042. For Sevastopol Naval Base. That's it. Not for Crimea, not for the Donbas, nothing like that.

我们知道这一点是因为朱利安·阿桑奇，真的，相信我，现在没有一句关于任何事情的话会告诉美国人民，或者你们，或者任何报纸。因此，我们要感谢朱利安·阿桑奇，因为我们可以详细阅读这份备忘录。如你所知，维克多·亚努科维奇在2010年当选时的立场是中立。那时，俄罗斯对乌克兰没有任何领土利益或意图。我知道，因为那些年我在那里。俄罗斯当时在谈判的是延续至2042年的一项25年租约，用于塞瓦斯托波尔海军基地。就是这样。不是为了克里米亚，也不是为了顿巴斯，完全没有那样的计划。

This idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian Empire, this is childish propaganda. Excuse me. If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Childer stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So no designs at all. The United States decided this man must be overthrown. It's called a regime change operation. There have been about a hundred of them by the United States, many in your countries, and many all over the world. That's what the CIA does for a living.

普京正在重建俄罗斯帝国的说法是幼稚的宣传。抱歉，如果有人了解日常和年度历史，就会知道这很幼稚。幼稚的东西似乎比成熟的东西更有效。所以根本没有任何这样的设计。美国决定要推翻这个人，这被称为政权更迭行动。美国已经进行了大约一百次这样的行动，其中很多发生在你们国家，以及世界各地。这就是中央情报局的日常工作。

Please know it. It's a very unusual kind of foreign policy. But in America, if you don't like the other side, you don't negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them. Preferably covertly, if it doesn't work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it's not our fault. They're the aggressor. They're the other side. They're Hitler. That comes up every two or three years. Whether it's Saddam Hussein, whether it's Assad, whether it's Putin. That's very convenient. That's the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given anywhere. Well, we're facing Munich, 1938. Well, we're facing Munich, 1938. Can't talk to the other side. They're evil, implacable foes. That's the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our mass media. And the mass media repeats it entirely because it's completely sub-born by the US government.

请了解这点：这是非常不寻常的外交政策。在美国，如果你不喜欢对方，你不会与他们谈判，而是试图推翻他们。最好是秘密地进行，如果秘密不成，就公开进行。你总是说这不是我们的错，是他们在侵略。他们是对立的一方，他们是希特勒。这种说法每隔两三年就会出现一次。无论是萨达姆·侯赛因，阿萨德，还是普京。这种解释非常方便，而且这是美国人民唯一能得到的外交政策解释。我们被告知现在情况就像是1938年的慕尼黑。我们不能与对方交谈，因为他们是邪恶的、不可调和的敌人。这是我们从大众媒体中听到的唯一一种外交政策模式。而大众媒体之所以完全重复这一点，是因为它完全受控于美国政府。

Now, in 2014, the US worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Newland, and the US Ambassador, Peter Piot. Can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman, this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Serri. Did I write you that this morning? Yeah, I saw that. He's now gotten both Serri and Bonke Moon to agree that Serri could come in Monday or Tuesday. Okay. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it. And, you know, fuck the EU. No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain, you can be able to, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.

现在是2014年，美国积极参与推翻亚努科维奇。这件事大家都知道，我在哥伦比亚大学的同事维多利亚·纽兰和美国驻乌克兰大使彼得·皮奥特的电话被截获。我有点不记得是告诉过你还是只告诉了华盛顿，我今天早上跟杰夫·费尔特曼谈过，他为联合国的代表提出了一个新名字，罗伯特·塞里。我今天早上给你写过这个吗？是的，我看到了。他已经让塞里和潘基文都同意，塞里可以在周一或周二过来。我觉得这很不错，能够有联合国的支持来稳住局势。不过，别管欧盟。没错，我觉得我们必须采取些措施巩固这个局面，因为可以确定的是，如果事情开始好转，俄罗斯会在背后搞破坏。

You don't get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call and they put it on the Internet. Listen to it. It's fascinating. I know all these people, by the way, by doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That's the job. Now, when the Maidan occurred, I was called immediately, oh, Professor Saks, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis. Because I'm pretty good at that. And so I flew to Kiev and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the US paid the money for all the people around the Maidan. Spontaneous revolution of dignity. Ladies and gentlemen, please, where do all these media outlets come from? Where does all this organization come from? Where do all these buses come from? Where do all these people called in come from? Are you kidding? This is organized effort. And it's not a secret except to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly.

你找不到更好的证据。俄罗斯人截获了她的电话，并把它放到了网上。听听，真的很有意思。顺便说一下，我认识这些人，通过那件事，他们都在拜登政府中获得了晋升。这就是工作的内容。当迈丹事件发生时，我立刻接到电话：“哦，索克斯教授，新任乌克兰总理希望见您，讨论经济危机。”因为我在这方面很擅长。所以我飞到了基辅，并在迈丹四处参观。他们告诉我，美国为所有在迈丹的人支付了费用。这所谓的自发尊严革命。女士们先生们，请问，这些媒体从哪里来的？所有这些组织从哪里来的？所有这些巴士从哪里来的？所有这些人是从哪里找来的？你在开玩笑吗？这是一场有组织的行动。除了欧洲和美国的公民，其他所有人都对此心知肚明。

Then came Minsk and especially Minsk II, which, by the way, was modeled on the Internet. It was on South Tyrolian autonomy. And the Belgians could have related to Minsk II very well. It said there should be autonomy for the Russian-speaking regions in the east of Ukraine. It was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council. The United States and Ukraine decided it was not to be enforced. Germany and France, which were the guarantors of the Normandy process, let it go. And it was absolutely another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual, playing completely useless subsidiary role, even though it was a guarantor of the agreement.

然后是明斯克协议，尤其是明斯克二协议。顺便提一下，它的设计借鉴了互联网的模式，参照了南蒂罗尔的自治经验。比利时对明斯克二协议可能感同身受。协议指出，乌克兰东部的俄语区应该享有自治权。这一协议得到了联合国安理会的一致支持。然而，美国和乌克兰决定不执行该协议。作为诺曼底进程的担保国，德国和法国也放任不管。这无疑又是一次美国单边主义行为，欧洲依旧在其中扮演了毫无用处的辅助角色，尽管他们是协议的担保方。

Trump won, raised the armaments. There were many thousands of deaths in the shelling by Ukraine in the Donbas. There was no Minsk II agreement. And then Biden came into office. And again, I know all these people. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party. I now am strictly sworn to be a member of no party. Because both are the same anyway. And because this is, the Democrats became complete war monitors over time. And there was not one voice about peace, just like most of your parliamentarians, the same way. So at the end of 1991, Putin put on the table a last effort in two security agreement drafts, one with Europe and one with the United States.

特朗普赢了，增加了军备。乌克兰在顿巴斯的炮击造成了成千上万的死亡。没有达成明斯克二号协议。然后拜登上台。我认识这些人。我曾是民主党的成员，如今我发誓不加入任何党派，因为它们都一样。而且，民主党人在这一过程中完全变成了战争支持者，没有一个声音呼吁和平，就像你们的大多数议员一样。因此，在1991年末，普京提出了最后的努力，提交了两个安全协议草案，一个是与欧洲，另一个是与美国。

The US put on the table December 15, 2021. I had an hour call with Jake Sullivan in the White House begging Jake, avoid the war. You can avoid the war. All you have to do is say NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine. And he said to me, oh, NATO's not going to enlarge to Ukraine. Don't worry about it. I said, Jake, say it publicly. No, no, no, we can't say it publicly. Say, Jake, you're going to have a war over something that isn't even going to happen? He said, don't worry, Jeff. There will be no war. These are not very bright people. I'm telling you, if I can give you my honest view, they're not very bright people. And I've dealt with them for more than 40 years.

2021年12月15日，美国提出了一个建议。我与白宫的杰克·沙利文进行了一个小时的电话交谈，恳求他避免战争。我告诉他，你可以避免战争。你所需要做的就是宣布北约不会扩展到乌克兰。他对我说，哦，北约不会扩展到乌克兰，不用担心。我说，杰克，那就公开说出来。他说，不，不，我们不能公开说。我又说，杰克，你难道要因为一件根本不会发生的事情引发战争吗？他说，不用担心，杰夫，不会有战争的。我告诉你们，如果让我诚实地表达我的看法，这些人不是很聪明。我已经和他们打交道超过40年了。

They talk to themselves. They don't talk to anybody else. They play game theory. In non-cooperative game theory, you don't talk to the other side. You just make your strategy. This is the essence of game theory. It's not negotiation theory. It's not peacemaking theory. It is unilateral non-cooperative theory, if you know formal game theory. That's what they play. It started at the Rand Corporation. That's what they still play. In 2019, there's a paper by Rand. How do we extend Russia? Do you know they wrote a paper which Biden followed? How do we annoy Russia? That's literally the strategy. How do we annoy Russia? We're trying to provoke it, trying to make it break apart. Maybe have regime change. Maybe have unrest. Maybe have economic crisis. That's what you call your ally. Are you kidding?

他们自言自语，不与他人交流。他们在玩博弈论。在非合作博弈论中，你不与对方沟通，只制定自己的策略。这就是博弈论的本质。它不是谈判理论，也不是和平特论，而是单方面的非合作理论，这是正式的博弈论概念。他们所玩的就是这一套。这种理论始于兰德公司，至今仍在使用。2019年，兰德公司发表了一篇关于如何"拖垮"俄罗斯的论文。你知道拜登遵循了那篇论文的策略吗？他们的策略就是：如何激怒俄罗斯。我们试图挑衅它，试图让它分崩离析，可能促成政权更迭，可能引发动荡，也可能引发经济危机。你所称的盟友就是这样的吗？开什么玩笑？

So, I had a long and frustrating phone call with Sullivan. I was standing out in the freezing cold. I happened to be trying to have a ski day. And there I was. Jake, don't have the war. Oh, there'll be no war, Jeff. We know a lot of what happened the next month, which is that they refuse to negotiate. The stupidest idea of NATO is the so-called open door policy. Are you kidding? NATO reserves the right to go where it wants without any neighbor having any say whatsoever. Well, I tell the Mexicans and the Canadians don't try it. You know, Trump may want to take over Canada, so Canada could say to China, why don't you build a military base in Ontario? I wouldn't advise it.

所以，我和萨利文通了一个又长又让人沮丧的电话。当时我站在寒冷的室外，正打算滑雪。结果就这样了。杰克，不要发动战争。哦，不会有战争的，杰夫。接下来一个月发生的事情我们很多已经知道，那就是他们拒绝谈判。北约最愚蠢的想法就是所谓的开放政策。你在开玩笑吗？北约保留随意去任何地方的权利，而邻国却没有任何发言权。我对墨西哥人和加拿大人说，别这样。你知道，特朗普可能想接管加拿大，所以加拿大可以对中国说，为什么不在安大略建个军事基地？我不会建议这样做。

And the United States would not say, well, it's an open door. That's their business. I mean, they can do what they want. That's not our business. But grown-ups in Europe repeat this. In Europe. In your commission. You're a high representative. This is nonsense stuff. This is not even baby geopolitics. This is just not thinking at all. So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this. Not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was going to take over Ukraine.

美国不会说这是一个开放的门，那是他们的事情。我是说，他们可以做他们想做的事情，那不是我们的事。但欧洲的成年人在重复这种说法。在欧洲。在你们的委员会中。你是一位高级代表。这是无稽之谈。甚至不是幼稚的地缘政治，这完全是没有经过思考的。所以战争开始了。普京在战争中的意图是什么？我可以告诉你他的意图。他的目的是逼迫泽连斯基谈判中立。这在入侵开始后的七天内就发生了。你应该理解这一点，而不是那些关于这件事的宣传。哦，他们失败了，他要占领乌克兰。

Come on, ladies and gentlemen, understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO and what is NATO? It's the United States. Off of Russia's border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested? First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would the United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes. But because the United States unilaterally abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002 and ended the nuclear arms control framework by doing so.

来吧，女士们先生们，理解一些基本的东西。这个想法是让北约远离俄罗斯的边界，而北约是什么？就是美国。不多也不少。我还要补充一个非常重要的点：他们为什么如此感兴趣？首先，因为如果中国或俄罗斯决定在格兰德河或加拿大边界上设立军事基地，美国不仅会大为震惊，我们大概会在十分钟内爆发战争。但是因为美国在2002年单方面放弃了反弹道导弹条约，并因此终结了核军备控制框架。

And this is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based on trying to block a first strike. The ABM treaty was a critical component of that. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM treaty in 2002. It blew a Russian gasket. So everything I've been describing is in the context of the destruction of the nuclear framework as well. And starting in 2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania. And Russia doesn't like that. And one of the issues on the table in December and January, December 2021, January 2022, was does the United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine?

理解这一点极其重要：核武器控制框架的基础是防止第一次打击。ABM条约（反弹道导弹条约）是其中一个关键组成部分。然而，美国在2002年单方面退出了这一条约，这对俄罗斯造成了极大的愤怒。因此，我所描述的一切都与核框架的瓦解有关。从2010年开始，美国在波兰和罗马尼亚部署了宙斯盾导弹系统，而俄罗斯对此并不满意。在2021年12月至2022年1月的谈判中，有一个重要议题就是美国是否声称有权在乌克兰部署导弹系统。

And Blinken told Lavrov, in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put missile systems wherever it wants. That's your putative ally. And now let's put intermediate missile systems back in Germany. The United States walked out of the INF treaty unilaterally in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now. None. When Zelensky said in seven days, let's negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely, because I've talked to all the parties in detail. Within a couple of weeks, there was a document exchanged that President Putin had approved that Lavrov had presented that was being managed by the Turkish mediators.

布林肯在2022年1月告诉拉夫罗夫，美国保留在任何地方部署导弹系统的权利。这就是你的所谓盟友。现在我们重新在德国部署中程导弹系统。美国在2019年单方面退出了《中程导弹条约》。目前没有任何核武器框架。泽连斯基曾在七天内表示愿意谈判，我对此非常了解，因为我与各方进行了详细的沟通。几周内，普京总统批准了一份文件，由拉夫罗夫提交，并由土耳其调解员进行管理。

I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement. Why? Because the United States told them to. Because the UK added icing to the cake by having BOGO go in early April to Ukraine and explain. And he has recently, and if your security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, God help us all. Keith Starmer turns out to be even worse. It's unimaginable. But it is true. Boris Johnson has explained, and you can look it up on the website, that what's at stake here is Western hegemony. Not Ukraine, Western hegemony.

我飞往安卡拉，详细了解调解人正在做的事情。乌克兰单方面退出了接近达成的协议。为什么？因为美国告诉他们这么做。因为英国在此基础上“锦上添花”，让鲍里斯·约翰逊在四月初前往乌克兰进行解释。而且他最近这样说，如果我们的安全掌握在鲍里斯·约翰逊手中，天哪，保佑我们所有人。基斯·斯塔莫更糟糕，简直难以想象，但这是真的。鲍里斯·约翰逊已经解释过，你可以在网上查到，此事关乎的是西方的霸权，不是乌克兰，而是西方的霸权。

Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group in the spring of 2022, where we wrote a document explaining, nothing good can come out of this war for Ukraine. Negotiate now because anything that takes time will mean massive amounts of deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and likely loss of the war. I want to change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document. And since that document, since the US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable, say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying. It's the pure proxy war. One of our senators nearby me, Blumenthal, says this out loud. Mitt Romney says this out loud. It's best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It's unreal.

迈克尔和我在2022年春天与一个团队在梵蒂冈会面，我们在那里写了一份文件，解释说这场战争对乌克兰来说没有好结果。我们当时建议立即谈判，因为任何拖延都会导致大量人员死亡、增加核升级的风险，并可能导致战争的失败。我现在想修改我们当时写的一个字。这份文件没有任何问题。而自从那份文件之后，美国让谈判人员离开了谈判桌，大约有一百万乌克兰人死于战争或受重伤。而美国的参议员们，尽可能地卑鄙、玩世不恭和腐败，却说这是一笔很好的花费，因为没有美国人死。这是一场彻头彻尾的代理人战争。我附近的参议员布卢门撒尔公开这样说，米特·罗姆尼也是。他们说这笔钱花得最好，因为没有美国人死。真是难以置信。

Now, just to bring us up to yesterday, this failed. This project failed. The idea of the project was that Russia would fold its hand. The idea all along was Russia can't resist, as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in 1997. The Americans thought we have the upper hand. We're going to win because we're going to bluff them. They're not really going to fight. They're not really going to mobilize. The nuclear option of cutting them out of swift. That's going to do them in. The economic sanctions, that's going to do them in. The Heimars, that's going to do them in. The Attackums, the F-16s. Honestly, I've listened to this for 70 years. I've listened to it as semi-understanding, I'd say, for about 56 years. They speak nonsense every day, my country, my government. This is so familiar to me, completely familiar.

现在，让我们回顾一下截至昨天的情况，这个项目失败了。这个项目的初衷是迫使俄罗斯屈服。自1997年以来，正如兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基所解释的那样，一直以来的想法是俄罗斯无法抵抗。美国人认为我们占据了上风，我们会赢，因为我们准备用虚张声势的方法吓倒他们。他们不会真正去战斗，他们不会真正去动员。把他们踢出SWIFT系统的核选项会让他们崩溃，经济制裁会让他们崩溃，海马斯火箭炮会让他们崩溃，ATACMS战术导弹，F-16战斗机。这些说法我真的听了70年，大约在56年前开始半懂不懂。我国家，我的政府，每天都在说这些胡话。这对我来说再熟悉不过了，完全熟悉。

I begged the Ukrainians, and I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians. I'm not anti-Ukrainian, pro-Ukrainian, completely. I said, save your lives, save your sovereignty, save your territory, be neutral. Don't listen to the Americans. I repeated to them the famous adage of Henry Kissinger that to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Okay, so let me repeat that for Europe. To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.

我恳求乌克兰人，我在乌克兰人中间有过往的战绩。我建议乌克兰人。我不是反对乌克兰的，我是完全支持乌克兰的。我告诉他们，要保护自己的生命、主权和领土，保持中立。不要听信美国。我向他们重复亨利·基辛格的名言：与美国为敌是危险的，但与美国为友是致命的。好的，让我再为欧洲重复一遍：与美国为敌是危险的，但与美国为友是致命的。

So, let me now finalize a few words about Trump. Trump does not want the losing hand. This is why it is more likely than not this war will end. Because Trump and President Putin will agree to end the war. If Europe does all its great war mongering, it doesn't matter. The war is ending. So, get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. It's over. And it's over because Trump doesn't want to carry a loser. That's it. It's not some great morality. He doesn't want to carry a loser. This is a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine.

让我来总结一下关于特朗普的几点。他不想拿到失败的牌。这就是为什么这场战争更有可能结束的原因，因为特朗普和普京总统会同意结束战争。欧洲再怎么好战也没用，战争会结束。所以，请尽快释怀，并告诉你的同事们，事情已经结束了。之所以结束，是因为特朗普不想被失败拖累，仅此而已。这并不是什么高尚的道德问题，只是他不想承担失败。这是一场失败。而通过目前正在进行的谈判，乌克兰将会得到拯救。

Second is Europe. Your stock market's rising in recent days. By the horrible news of negotiations. I know this has been met with the sheer horror in these chambers. But this is the best news that you could get. Now, I encouraged they don't listen to me, but I tried to reach out to some of the European leaders. Most don't want to hear anything from me at all. But I said, don't go to Kiev. Go to Moscow. Discuss with your counterparts. Are you kidding? You're Europe. You're 450 million people. You're $20 trillion economy. You should be the main economic trading partner of Russia. It's natural links.

第二是关于欧洲的。你们的股市最近几天在上升，这与令人震惊的谈判消息有关。我知道这在这些会议中引起了极大的恐慌。但这对你们来说可能是最好的消息。我尝试与一些欧洲领导人交流，尽管很多人并不想听我的意见。我建议他们不要去基辅，而是去莫斯科，与他们的对手进行讨论。你们是在开玩笑吗？你们是欧洲，有4.5亿人口，经济总量达到20万亿美元。你们本应该成为俄罗斯的主要经济贸易伙伴，这是一种自然的联系。

By the way, if anyone would like to discuss how the US blew up Nord Stream, I'd be happy to talk about that. So, the Trump administration is imperialist at heart. It is a great powers dominate the world. It is we will do what we want when we can. We will be better than a senescent Biden. And we'll cut our losses where we have to. There are several war zones in the world. The Middle East being another. We don't know what will happen with that. Again, if Europe had a proper policy, you could stop that war. I'll explain how.

顺便提一下，如果有人想讨论美国如何炸毁北溪管道，我很乐意谈谈。特朗普政府本质上是帝国主义的，主张大国主导世界。他们的态度是：我们会在有机会时随心所欲行事，并力求表现得比年迈的拜登政府更出色。而且，他们会愿意在必要时减少损失。目前世界上有几个战区，其中另一个是中东。我们还不知道中东的局势会如何发展。同样，如果欧洲有一个恰当的政策，就能阻止那场战争。我可以解释方法。

But war with China is also a possibility. So, I'm not saying that we're at the new age of peace. But we are in a very different kind of politics right now. And Europe should have a foreign policy. And not just a foreign policy of rusaphobia. A foreign policy that is a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia's situation, that understands Europe's situation, that understands what America is and what it stands for. That tries to avoid Europe being invaded by the United States. Because it's not impossible that America will just land troops in Danish territory. I'm not joking. And I don't think they're joking. And Europe needs a foreign policy. A real one. Not a yes, will bargain with Mr. Trump and meet him halfway. You know what that will be like? Give me a call afterwards.

但与中国的战争也是一种可能性。所以，我并不是说我们已经进入了一个新的和平时代。我们现在处于一种非常不同的政治环境中。欧洲应该有自己的外交政策，而不仅仅是反俄政策。需要一个现实的外交政策，理解俄罗斯的处境，理解欧洲的处境，理解美国的本质及其代表的意义。这个政策应尽量避免欧洲被美国入侵，因为美国在丹麦领土上登陆并非不可能。我不是在开玩笑，我也不认为他们在开玩笑。欧洲需要一个真正的外交政策，而不仅仅是与特朗普讨价还价，并在中间达成妥协。你知道那会是什么样吗？之后可以给我打电话聊聊。

Please don't have American officials as head of Europe. Have European officials. Please. Have a European foreign policy. You're going to be living with Russia for a long time. So, please negotiate with Russia. There are real security issues on the table. But the bombast and the rusaphobia is not serving your security at all. It's not serving Ukraine's security at all. It contributed to a million casualties in Ukraine from this idiotic American adventure that you signed on to and then became the lead cheerleaders of. It solves nothing.

请不要让美国官员担任欧洲的领导职位，而是应该由欧洲官员来担任。请制定一个欧洲的外交政策。你们将与俄罗斯长期共存，所以请与俄罗斯进行谈判。确实有许多重大的安全问题需要解决，但夸夸其谈和对俄罗斯的恐惧无助于提高你们的安全，也无助于乌克兰的安全。这种愚蠢的美国冒险行动导致了乌克兰有百万人受害，而你们参与其中并成为最积极的支持者之一。这根本解决不了问题。

On the Middle East, by the way, the U.S. completely handed over foreign policy in Netanyahu 30 years ago. The Israel lobby dominates American politics. Just have no doubt about it. I could explain for hours how it works. It's very dangerous. I'm hoping that Trump will not destroy his administration and worse the Palestinian people because of Netanyahu, who I regard as a war criminal, properly indicted by the ICC, and that needs to be told no more. That there will be a state of Palestine on the borders of the 4th of June, 1967, according to international law, as the only way for peace.

关于中东问题，顺便提一下，美国在30年前将其外交政策完全交给了内塔尼亚胡。以色列游说团体主导着美国政治，这点毫无疑问。我可以详细解释这种机制，但这是非常危险的。我希望特朗普不会因为内塔尼亚胡而破坏他的政府，更不会因此加剧巴勒斯坦人民的困境。我认为内塔尼亚胡是个战争罪犯，应受到国际刑事法院的起诉，再不能任其妄为。根据国际法，唯一的和平解决方案是建立一个基于1967年6月4日边界的巴勒斯坦国。

It's the only way for Europe to have peace on your borders with the Middle East is the two-state solution. There is only one obstacle to it, by the way, and that is the veto of the United States and the U.N. Security Council. So if you want to have some influence, tell the United States, drop the veto. You are together with 180 countries in the world. The only ones that oppose a Palestinian state are the United States, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Polau, Papua New Guinea, Mr. Malay, and Paraguay. So this is a place where Europe could have a big influence.

要让欧洲在中东边界实现和平，唯一的办法就是两国方案。不过，目前只有一个障碍，那就是美国和联合国安理会的否决权。因此，如果你想产生影响，就告诉美国放弃否决权。你和世界上180个国家站在一起。唯一反对巴勒斯坦建国的国家是美国、以色列、密克罗尼西亚、瑙鲁、帕劳、巴布亚新几内亚、马绍尔群岛和巴拉圭。因此，这正是欧洲可以发挥巨大影响的地方。

Europe has gone silent about the JCPOA and Iran. Netanyahu's greatest dream in life is a war between the United States and Iran. He's not given up, and it's not impossible that that would come also. And that's because the U.S. in this regard does not have an independent foreign policy. It is run by Israel. It's tragic. It's amazing, by the way. And it could end. Trump may say that he wants foreign policy back. Maybe. I'm hoping that it's the case.

欧洲对《联合全面行动计划》（JCPOA）和伊朗的态度变得沉默。内塔尼亚胡最大的梦想就是美国和伊朗之间爆发战争。他没有放弃这种想法，而且这种情况也不是不可能发生。这是因为美国在这个问题上并没有独立的外交政策，其外交政策受以色列影响。这真是一个悲剧。而且这令人惊讶。这样的局面是可以终结的。特朗普可能会表示他希望重新掌控外交政策。也许吧，我希望事情会是这样。

Finally, let me just say, with respect to China, China is not an enemy. China is just a success story. That's why it is viewed by the United States as an enemy. Because China is a bigger economy than the United States. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Very well. Now, questions. Please don't make any statements. Just make questions because we have too many and we don't have that all that much time.

最后，让我谈谈对中国的看法。中国不是敌人。中国只是一个成功的故事。这就是为什么美国将其视为敌人，因为中国的经济比美国更大，仅此而已。谢谢，谢谢，非常感谢。好，现在请提问。请不要发表任何声明，只提问，因为我们的问题很多，但时间有限。

So where do I start? I start with, on the left side, I'm a preference to the left, as you know, you come all. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Jeff Lissachs. From the Czech Republic, we are glad we have you here. We have a problem. We were cursed by a witch who taught the EU and the EU is marked. So it won't be improved until 2029. But what we, the Central Europeans, should do in the meantime, especially if the Germans don't happen to vote for Sarabagan Connect enough, are we supposed to create some kind of neutrality for the Central Europe? Or would you suggest us to do?

从哪里开始呢？我从左边开始，我比较偏好左边，如你所知，你们都来了。好的，请继续。谢谢你，Jeff Lissachs。从捷克共和国来的人，我们很高兴你在这里。我们有个问题。我们被一个女巫诅咒了，她诅咒了欧盟，而且欧盟也被标记了。直到2029年都不会有改善。但是在此期间，我们中欧的人应该做些什么呢？尤其是如果德国人不支持Sarabagan Connect，我们是否应该为中欧创造某种中立状态？或者你有什么建议吗？

So, first of all, all my grandchildren are Czech. I want you to know. And Sonia is a Czech-born and Czech citizen. So we're very proud. I'm the trailing spouse in this, but I'm a Czech wannabe. Europe needs to have a foreign policy that is a European foreign policy. And it needs to be a realist foreign policy. Realist is not hate. Realist is actually trying to understand both sides and to negotiate.

首先，我想让你知道，我所有的孙子孙女都是捷克人。而且，索尼娅是在捷克出生并拥有捷克国籍。我们对此感到非常自豪。在这个家庭，我是跟随配偶的那一方，但我也想成为捷克的一员。欧洲需要有自己的外交政策，一种真正属于欧洲的外交政策。而且这需要是一种现实主义的外交政策。现实主义不是仇恨，而是试图理解双方并进行谈判。

There are two kinds of realists, a defensive realist and a offensive realist. My dear friend John Mirchheimer, who was the offensive realist, I were very close friends and I loved him, but I believe more than he does. You talk to the other side and you find a way to make an understanding. And so, basically, Russia is not going to invade Europe. This is the fundamental point. It may get up to the Napa River. It's not going to invade Europe.

有两种现实主义者，一种是防御性现实主义者，另一种是进攻性现实主义者。我的好朋友约翰·米尔斯海默就是个进攻性现实主义者，我们曾是非常亲密的朋友，我很喜欢他，但我比他更相信另一种方式。你可以和对方对话，寻找相互理解的方法。因此，基本上，俄罗斯不会入侵欧洲。这是最基本的观点。即便它可能会推进到纳帕河，也不会入侵整个欧洲。

But there are real issues. The main issue for Russia was the United States because Russia as a major power and the largest nuclear power in the world was profoundly concerned about US unipolarity from the beginning. Now that this is seemingly, possibly ending, Europe has to open negotiations directly with Russia as well because the United States will quickly lose interest and you're going to be living with Russia for the next thousands of years. So what do you want? You want to make sure that the Baltic states are secure.

但是确实存在一些实际问题。对俄罗斯来说，最主要的问题是美国，因为俄罗斯作为一个大国和世界上最大的核武器拥有国，从一开始就对美国的单极地位深感担忧。如今，这种单极地位似乎可能正在结束，欧洲也必须直接与俄罗斯展开谈判，因为美国很快就会失去兴趣，而你们将要在未来几千年里与俄罗斯共存。那么，你们想要什么呢？你们想要确保波罗的海国家的安全。

The best thing for the Baltic states is to stop their rusaphobia. This is the most important thing. Estonia has about 25% Russian citizens, or Russian speaking citizens, ethnic Russians. Latvia the same. Don't provoke the neighbor. That's all. This is not heard. It really isn't heard. And again, I want to explain my point of view. I have helped these countries, the ones I'm talking about, trying to advise I'm not their enemy. I'm not Putin's puppet. I'm not Putin's apologist. I worked in Estonia. They gave me, I think it's the second highest civilian honor that a president of Estonia can bestow on a non-national because I designed their currency system for them in 1992.

波罗的海国家最好的做法是不再对俄罗斯怀有恐惧。这是最重要的事。爱沙尼亚大约有25%的俄罗斯公民或者说俄语的公民、俄罗斯族人。拉脱维亚的情况也是如此。不要挑衅邻国，就这么简单。但这并没有得到重视。真的没有。我想再次解释我的观点。我曾经帮助这些国家，我是指的这些国家，尝试给他们建议。并不是因为我与他们为敌，我不是普京的傀儡，也不是普京的辩护者。我曾在爱沙尼亚工作。他们给了我，也许是最高级别的荣誉之一，这是爱沙尼亚总统能够授予给外国人的荣誉，因为我在1992年为他们设计了货币体系。

So I'm giving them advice. Do not stand there, Estonia, and say, we want to break up Russia. Are you kidding? Don't. This is not how to survive in this world. You survive with mutual respect, actually. You survive in negotiation. You survive in discussion. You don't outlaw the Russian language. Not a good idea when 25% of your population has the first language of Russian. It's not right even if there weren't a giant on the border. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. You'd have it as an official language. You'd have a language of, in lower school. You wouldn't antagonize the Russian Orthodox Church.

所以我在给他们建议。不要站在那里，爱沙尼亚，说我们要分裂俄罗斯。你在开玩笑吗？别这样。这不是在这个世界生存的方式。真正的生存之道是互相尊重。通过谈判和讨论去解决问题。不要禁止俄语的使用。当你25%的人口的母语是俄语时，这么做不是个好主意。即使边境没有一个巨大的邻国，这么做也并不对。你应该把俄语作为一种官方语言，并在低年级学校中教授它。你不应该与俄罗斯东正教会对抗。

So basically we need to behave like grownups. And when I constantly say that they're acting like children, Sonya always says to me, that's unfair to children. Because this is worse than children. We have a six-year-old granddaughter and a three-year-old grandson. And they actually make up with their friends. And we don't tell them, go, just ridicule them tomorrow. And every day we say, go, give them a hug, and go play. And they do. This is not hard. By the way, anyway, it won't be labor the point. Thank you.

所以基本上，我们需要表现得像个大人。而当我总是说他们表现得像小孩时，索尼娅总是对我说，这样说对孩子不公平，因为这比孩子还要糟糕。我们有一个六岁的孙女和一个三岁的孙子，他们实际上会和朋友和好。我们不会告诉他们，明天去嘲笑他们。我们每天都说，去给他们一个拥抱，然后一起玩。他们也确实这样做了。这并不难。顺便说一下，不再多说了。谢谢。

So, elect a new government. I shouldn't say that. First, we have to be the first. All I should say is change policy. I don't want to have a political leaning here. Yeah. Maybe a lady. And yeah. Does that work? Yeah. Hi, my name is Kirra. I'm a reporter with the Brussels Times. Thank you for the fascinating talk, Jeffrey. I just wanted to ask you about Trump's statements about wanting national members to increase their spending by 5%. And we're now seeing lots of countries scrambling to prove that they're going to do that, including Belgium.

那么，选出一个新政府。我不该这么说。首先，我们得成为先行者。我只想说改变政策。我不想在这里表现出政治倾向。或许选一个女性领导人？这样可以吗？你好，我叫Kirra，是《布鲁塞尔时报》的一名记者。谢谢你精彩的演讲，Jeffrey。我想问一下你对特朗普声明的看法，他希望成员国增加5%的支出。我们现在看到很多国家，包括比利时，都在忙着证明他们会做到这一点。

And given that Belgium is also the NATO headquarters, I wanted to ask you what would be the appropriate response to those statements by a national member? Thanks. Great. Thank you. We don't see exactly eye to eye on this question. So, let me give you my own view. My first recommendation with all respect to Brussels is move the NATO headquarters somewhere else. I mean it seriously because one of the worst parts of European policy right now is a complete confusion of Europe and NATO. These are completely different, but they became exactly the same.

考虑到比利时是北约总部所在地，我想问问您，对于某个国家成员发表的那些言论，适当的回应是什么？谢谢。太好了。谢谢。对于这个问题，我们的看法不完全一致。所以，让我说说我自己的观点。对于布鲁塞尔，我首先建议是，把北约总部迁到别处。我是认真的，因为欧洲政策目前最糟糕的地方之一就是混淆了欧洲和北约。这两者完全不同，但它们却变得完全一样了。

Europe is much better than NATO. In my opinion, NATO isn't even needed anymore. I would have ended it in 1991. But because the US viewed it as an instrument of hegemony, not as a defense against Russia, it continued afterwards. But the confusion of NATO and Europe is deadly because expanding Europe meant expanding NATO. Period. And these should have been completely different things. So, this is the first point. My own view, again, with all respect to Michael, we only had a brief conversation about it, is that Europe should have, Europe basically should have its own foreign policy and its own military security, its own strategic autonomy so-called.

欧洲比北约要好得多。在我看来，北约已经没有存在的必要了。我本来会在1991年就结束它。但是因为美国把北约看作霸权工具，而不是针对俄罗斯的防御手段，北约才一直持续到现在。然而，将北约和欧洲混为一谈是非常危险的，因为欧洲的扩张意味着北约的扩张。这两者本应是完全不同的。因此，这是我的第一个观点。再一次强调，在尊重迈克尔的前提下，尽管我们就此事只简单交流过，我认为欧洲应该拥有自己的外交政策和军事安全，所谓的战略自主权。

And it should. I'm in favor of that. I would disband NATO and maybe Trump is going to do it anyway. Maybe Trump's going to invade Greenland. Who knows? Then you're really going to find out what NATO means. So, I do think that Europe should invest in its security. Five percent is outlandish, ridiculous, absurd, completely absurd. No one needs to spend anything like that amount. Two to three percent of GDP, probably under the current circumstances.

这本就是应该的。我赞成这一点。我会解散北约，也许特朗普会这样做。也许特朗普还可能会入侵格陵兰岛，谁知道呢？那时候你就真的会明白北约意味着什么。所以，我确实认为欧洲应该投资于自身的安全。五个百分点的支出比例太夸张了，荒谬，完全不可理喻。没有必要花费那么多。在目前的情况下，国防开支可能需要占到 GDP 的2%到3%。

What I would do, by the way, is buy European production. Because actually, strangely, weirdly, unfortunately in this world, and it's a true truism, but it's unfortunate, so I'm not championing it, a lot of technological innovation spins off from the military sector, because governments invest in the military sector. So, Trump is an arms salesman. You understand that. He's selling American arms. He is selling American technology. Vance told you a few days ago, don't even think about having your own AI technology.

顺便说一下，我会购买欧洲的生产力。因为在这个世界上，虽然很奇怪但确实如此，并且不幸的是，这是真的，很多技术创新实际上起源于军事领域，因为政府在军事方面投入资金。所以，特朗普实际上是在当军火商。你懂的，他在推销美国的武器和技术。几天前，Vance告诉你，不要想着拥有自己的人工智能技术。

So, please understand that this increase of spending is for the United States, not for you. And in this sense, I'm completely against that approach. But I would not be against an approach of Europe spending two to three percent of GDP for a unified European security structure, and invested in Europe and European technology. And not having the United States dictate the use of European technology. It's so interesting. It's the Netherlands that produces the only machines of advanced semiconductors. Extreme ultraviolet lithography. It's ASML. But America determines every policy of ASML. The Netherlands doesn't even have a footnote. I wouldn't do that if I were you, hand over all security to the United States. I wouldn't do it. You have your own security framework. So you can have your own foreign policy framework as well.

请理解，这次增加的开支是为了美国，而不是为了你。因此，在这方面，我完全反对这种做法。但是，我不会反对欧洲花费其国内生产总值的2%到3%来建立一个统一的欧洲安全结构，同时投资于欧洲和欧洲技术。此外，不应该让美国来决定欧洲技术的使用。有趣的是，荷兰是唯一制造先进半导体机器的国家，这些机器是极紫外光刻机，由ASML公司生产。但美国却决定了ASML的每一个政策，而荷兰在这方面几乎没有任何发言权。如果我是你，我不会将所有安全问题交给美国管理。我不会这样做。你们应该有自己的安全框架，这样你们也可以拥有自己的外交政策框架。

Europe stands for lots of things that the United States does not stand for. Europe stands for climate action. By the way, rightly so, because our president is completely bonkers on this. And Europe stands for decency, for social democracy, as an ethos. I'm not talking about a party. I'm talking about an ethos of how equality of life occurs. Europe stands for multilateralism. Europe stands for the UN Charter. The US stands for none of those things. You know that our Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, canceled his trip to South Africa because on the agenda was equality and sustainability. And he said, I'm not getting into that. That is an honest reflection of deep Anglo-Saxon libertarianism.

欧洲代表着许多美国不代表的事物。欧洲支持气候行动。顺便说一句，这是完全正确的，因为我们的总统在这个问题上非常荒唐。欧洲代表着正派、社会民主，作为一种精神。我不是在谈论某个政党，而是在谈论一种关于生活平等的精神。欧洲支持多边主义，支持联合国宪章。而美国不支持这些。我们的国务卿马可·鲁比奥取消了对南非的访问，因为议程上有平等和可持续性的问题。他说，他对此不感兴趣。这诚实地反映了深层的盎格鲁-撒克逊自由主义思想。

Egalitarianism is not a word of the American lexicon. Sustainable development, not at all. You probably know, by the way, that of the 193 UN member states, 191 have had SDG plans presented as voluntary national reviews. 191, two have not. Haiti and the United States of America. The Biden administration wasn't even allowed to say sustainable development goals. The Treasury had a policy not to say sustainable development goals. Okay, I mention all of this because you need your own foreign policy. I issue a report, two reports each year, one the World Happiness Report, and 18 of the top 20 countries, if I remember correctly, are European. This is the highest quality of life in the whole world. So you need your own policy to protect that quality of life. The United States ranks way down.

平等主义这个词在美国的词汇中并不常见。可持续发展更是如此。顺便提一下，在联合国的193个成员国中，有191个国家已经提交了作为自愿国别审查的可持续发展目标（SDG）计划。191个国家中，有两个没有提交：海地和美国。拜登政府甚至被禁止提到可持续发展目标。美国财政部有一项政策，禁止提到可持续发展目标。我提到这些是因为你们需要制定自己的外交政策。我每年发布两个报告，其中一个是《世界幸福报告》，如果我没记错的话，排名前20的国家中有18个是欧洲国家。这些国家拥有全世界最高的生活质量。因此，你们需要有自己的政策来保护这种生活质量。而美国的排名非常靠后。

And the other report, where's my colleague, Guillaume, somewhere in the room? There he is. Guillaume La Fortun is the lead author of our annual Sustainable Development Report. And almost all of the top 20 countries are European countries because you believe in this stuff. And that's why you're the happiest except in geopolitics. But quality of life. So you need your own foreign policy, but you won't have it unless you have your own security. You just won't. And so, and by the way, 27 countries cannot each have their own foreign policy. This is a problem. You need a European foreign policy and a European security structure.

另一份报告在哪里，我的同事Guillaume在哪里？哦，他在那边。Guillaume La Fortun是我们年度《可持续发展报告》的主笔作者。而几乎所有排名前20的国家都是欧洲国家，因为你们相信这些理念。正因为如此，除了在地缘政治方面，你们是最快乐的。但是生活质量却很高。所以你们需要自己的外交政策，但没有自己的安全保障，这点是无法实现的。而且，顺便说一句，27个国家不可能各自拥有自己的外交政策。这是个问题。你们需要一个欧洲的外交政策和一个欧洲的安全结构。

And by the way, although Michael assures me it's dead, I was the greatest fan of OSCE and believe that OSCE is the proper framework for European security. It could really work. Okay. And afterwards. First, yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you at the lunch. No, you can then. Yeah, okay. Well, thank you, Professor. I am from Slovakia and my Prime Minister, Robert Fitsa, was almost shot dead because the opinions you had, the similar with him. Yes, we are as a Slovakia, a Slovak government of the few countries in the European Union.

顺便说一下，虽然迈克尔向我保证OSCE已经不起作用了，但我是OSCE最热衷的支持者，并相信OSCE是维护欧洲安全的恰当框架。它真的有潜力发挥作用。好的，然后继续。首先，非常感谢你们。谢谢在午餐时的款待。好的，非常感谢，教授。我来自斯洛伐克，我的总理罗伯特·菲佐几乎因为与你持有相似意见而遇刺。是的，作为斯洛伐克，我们是欧盟中为数不多的几个国家之一。

We are talking to Russians. Two months ago, I was talking with Mr. Medvedev in two weeks. I will be talking in Duma with Mr. Slutsky, who is the chairman of the Russian Foreign Affairs Committee in Moscow. Maybe my question is, would you be your message to Russians in this moment? Because as I heard, they are on the victorious wave. They have no reason to not to conquer the thombas because that's their war aim. And what can Trump can offer to them to stop the war immediately? What would be the message for Russians from your side? Thank you very much.

我们正在与俄罗斯人对话。两个月前，我与梅德韦杰夫先生进行了交流。两周后，我将在莫斯科的国家杜马与俄罗斯外交事务委员会主席斯卢茨基先生进行会谈。也许我的问题是，您现在会给俄罗斯人传达什么信息？因为据我所知，他们正处在胜利的浪潮中。他们没有理由不去征服顿巴斯，因为那是他们的战争目标。那么特朗普能向他们提供什么，以立即停止战争？您会给俄罗斯人传达什么信息？非常感谢。

Lots of important things are now on offer and on the table. And I believe that the war will end quickly because of this. This will be at least one blessing in a very, very difficult time. Exactly what the settlement will be, I think, is now only a question of the territorial issues. And that is whether it is the complete four oblasts, including all of Hersonan's operation, whether it is on the contact line and how all of this will be negotiated. I'm not in the room of the negotiations, so I can't really say more. But the basis will be there will be territorial concessions, there will be neutrality, there will be security guarantees for Ukraine, for all parties, there will be, at least with the US and end of the economic sanctions. But what counts, of course, is Europe and Russia.

现在有许多重要的事情正在提议并摆上桌面。我相信，正因为如此，战争将会很快结束。在这个非常艰难的时期，这至少是一个福音。具体的解决方案，我认为现在只剩下领土问题需要解决。这包括是否涵盖整个四个州，包括赫尔松的行动区域，是否沿接触线划分，以及如何谈判。我不在谈判的房间里，所以不能说得太具体。但基本的情况是将会有领土让步，乌克兰将保持中立，各方都会提供安全保障，至少美国会停止经济制裁。但重要的是欧洲和俄罗斯之间的关系。

I think that there are, and maybe there will be a restoration of nuclear arms negotiations, which would be extraordinarily positive. I think that there are tremendously important issues for Europe to negotiate directly with Russia. And so I would urge President Costa and the leadership of Europe to open direct discussions with President Putin because European security is on the table. I know the Russian leaders, many of them quite well, they are good negotiators, and you should negotiate with them, and you should negotiate well with them.

我认为，目前或许未来将会恢复核武器谈判，这将是非常积极的。我认为欧洲有非常重要的问题需要直接与俄罗斯协商。因此，我建议科斯塔总统一和欧洲领导人主动与普京总统展开直接对话，因为欧洲的安全问题迫在眉睫。我了解俄罗斯的领导人，他们中很多人都是出色的谈判者，你们应该与他们谈判，而且要谈得好。

I would ask them some questions. I would ask them, what are the security guarantees that can work so that this war ends permanently? What are the security guarantees for the Baltic states? What should be done? Part of the process of negotiation is actually to ask the other side about your concerns, not just to know what they know as you think is too true, but actually to ask, we have a real problem, we have a real worry, what are the guarantees? Well, I want to know the answers also.

我会问他们一些问题。我会问他们，有哪些安全保障可以让这场战争永久结束？对于波罗的海国家，有哪些安全保障？应该怎么做？谈判过程的一部分实际上是向对方询问你的担忧，而不仅仅是知晓他们已知的事情，而是要真正发问：我们有一个真实的问题，我们有一个真实的担忧，那么有什么保障？我也想知道这些答案。

By the way, I know Mr. Lavrov, Minister Lavrov for 30 years, I regard him as a brilliant foreign minister. Talk with him, negotiate with him, get ideas, put ideas on the table, put counter ideas on the table. I don't think all of this can be settled by pure reason because of oneself. You settle wars by negotiating and understanding what are the real issues, and you don't call the other side a liar when they express their issues. You work out what the implications of that are for the mutual benefit of peace.

顺便说一下，我认识拉夫罗夫先生，已经有30年了。我认为他是一位出色的外交部长。与他交谈、谈判，交流想法，提出建议和反对意见。我认为，凭借单纯的理性无法解决所有问题，因为战争是通过谈判和理解真正的问题来解决的。当对方表达他们的问题时，你不能称他们为撒谎者。你需要弄清这些问题对双方和平共处有什么影响，以实现互利。

So, the most important thing is stop the yelling, stop the warmongering, and discuss with the Russian counterparts, and don't beg to be at the table with the United States. You don't need to be in the room with the United States. You're Europe. You should be in the room with Europe and Russia. If the United States wants to join, that's fine. But to beg, no. And by the way, Europe does not need to have Ukraine in the room when Europe talks with Russia. You have a lot of issues, direct issues. Don't hand over your foreign policy to anybody. Not to the United States, not to Ukraine, not to Israel. Keep a European foreign policy.

因此，最重要的是停止叫嚷，停止战争叫嚣，与俄罗斯方面进行讨论，不要急于与美国同席。你不需要和美国一起开会。你是欧洲，你应该与欧洲和俄罗斯一起开会。如果美国想加入，那很好，但不要为了加入而卑躬屈膝。此外，当欧洲与俄罗斯对话时，没必要带上乌克兰。你们有很多直接的问题。不要把你们的外交政策交给任何人，不管是美国、乌克兰，还是以色列。保持独立的欧洲外交政策。

This is the basic idea. Hans Noyhoff from the Sauernists political group in this parliament, alternative for Germany as political party. First of all, let me thank you Mr. Saxe for being here and sharing your ideas with us and be assured that many of your ideas and of your colleague John Merchheimer have well been received by political groups here and have been integrated into our agenda. I widely share your views.

这是基本的想法。来自萨尔派政治团体的议员汉斯·诺伊霍夫，也就是德国选择党的成员。首先，我要感谢萨克斯先生的到来，并与我们分享他的想法。请放心，您和约翰·梅施海默的许多观点已经被这里的许多政治团体理解并纳入了我们的议程。我非常赞同您的观点。

Yet there's one question regarding the historical account that you gave, where I would like to go in some detail. This concerns the beginning of NATO expansion. You reported from the website, what Gorbachev heard, that there are many quotations from Gensher, for example, that NATO will not move one inch eastwards. Now the two plus four treaty has been signed in September 1990, right, in Moscow. At the point in time, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Countries like Poland, Hungary and Czechia were not part of the negotiations for the two and four treaty.

关于您所提供的历史记述，有一个问题我希望能深入探讨一下。这涉及到北约扩张的开始。您从网站上引用了戈尔巴乔夫所听到的内容，有很多来自根舍的说法，比如北约不会向东扩展一英寸。现在，让我们来看一下《二加四条约》，这个条约是在1990年9月于莫斯科签署的。当时，华沙条约组织仍然存在。像波兰、匈牙利和捷克这样的国家并未参与《二加四条约》的谈判。

So the Warsaw Pact actually dissolved in July 1991, and the Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991. So nobody who was present in the negotiations could speak for Poland, could speak for Hungary, could speak for Slovakia, that they would not try to become member of NATO once the overall situation has changed. So the counter-argument, which we have to counter, is that it was on the will of these countries of Poland, of Hungary, of Slovakia, that they wanted to join NATO because of the very history they had with the Soviet Union. And of course Russia was still perceived in a way as a follower of the Soviet Union.

华沙条约组织实际上在1991年7月解散，而苏联在同年12月解体。因此，在谈判中，没有人能代表波兰、匈牙利或斯洛伐克宣称它们不会在整体形势发生变化后尝试加入北约。我们需要反驳的对立观点是，这些国家，如波兰、匈牙利和斯洛伐克，是基于他们与苏联的历史而主动选择加入北约的。当然，俄罗斯在某种程度上仍被视为苏联的继承者。

So how do you counter that argument? I have no doubt of why Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia wanted to join NATO. The question is, what is the US doing to make peace? Because NATO is not a choice of Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic or Slovakia. NATO is a US-led military alliance. And the question is, how are we going to establish peace in a reliable way? If I were making those decisions back then, I would have ended NATO altogether in 1991.

那么，你如何反驳这个论点呢？我毫不怀疑为什么匈牙利、波兰、捷克共和国和斯洛伐克想要加入北约。问题是，美国在为实现和平做些什么？因为北约不是匈牙利、波兰、捷克共和国或斯洛伐克的选择，而是一个由美国主导的军事联盟。问题在于，我们该如何以可靠的方式建立和平？如果当时是我在做那些决策，我会在1991年直接解散北约。

When those countries requested NATO, I would have explained to them what our Defense Secretary William Perry said, what our lead statesman George Kennan said, what our final ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, said, they said, well, we understand your feelings, but it's not a good idea because it could provoke a new Cold War with Russia. So that's how I would have answered it. When those countries joined in the first wave, I don't think it was that consequential, in fact, except that it was part of a bigger project.

当那些国家请求加入北约时，我本可以向他们解释我们国防部长威廉·佩里、我们的主要外交家乔治·凯南以及我们驻苏联的最后一位大使杰克·马特洛克所说的话。他们说，我们理解你们的感受，但这不是个好主意，因为这可能会挑起与俄罗斯的新冷战。所以我会这样回答。当那些国家在第一波加入时，我认为其实并没有那么重要，除了它是一个更大计划的一部分。

And the project was spelled out already in 1994. There's a very good book by Jonathan Haslam, a Harvard University press called Hubris, which gives a detailed historical documentation of step-by-step what happened. And it's really worth reading. So this is a. Now, but the point I would really make is that Ukraine and Georgia were too far. This is right up against Russia. This is in the context of the complete destabilization of the nuclear framework. This is in the context of the U.S. putting in missile systems on Russia's borders. If you listen to President Putin over the years, probably the main thing, if you listen carefully, that he's concerned about is missile seven minutes from Moscow, is a decapitation strike. And this is very real. The U.S. not only would freak out, but did freak out when this happened in the Western Hemisphere. So it's the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.

这个项目早在1994年就已经被明确提出。哈佛大学出版社的乔纳森·哈斯拉姆（Jonathan Haslam）有一本很不错的书，名为《傲慢》(Hubris)，这本书详细记录了事情一步步的发展过程，值得一读。但我真正想强调的一点是，乌克兰和格鲁吉亚离得太近了，它们紧挨着俄罗斯。这发生在核框架完全不稳定化的背景下，以及美国在俄罗斯边境部署导弹系统的情况下。如果你这些年来仔细听普京总统讲话，他主要担心的一点可能就是导弹距离莫斯科只有七分钟的飞行时间，即斩首式打击。这是非常真实的情况。当类似事情发生在西半球时，美国不仅会非常紧张，实际上也确实紧张过。所以，这就像是古巴导弹危机的翻版。

And fortunately, Nikita Khrushchev did not stand up and say, open-door policy of the Warsaw Pact. We can go wherever we want. Cuba's asked us, it's none of America's business. What Khrushchev said is, war, my God, we don't want war. We end this crisis. We both pull back. That's what Khrushchev and Kennedy decided in the end. So this is the real consequential. Russia even swallowed with a lot of pain. The Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia. It is Ukraine and Georgia. It's because of geography. It's because of Lord Palmerston. It's because of the First Crimean War. It's because of the missile systems. That this is the essence of why there was this war.

幸运的是，尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫并没有站出来宣布华沙条约组织的开放政策，说“我们可以去任何我们想去的地方。古巴邀请我们，这不关美国的事。”赫鲁晓夫真正说的是，“战争，我的天，我们不想要战争。我们结束这场危机，双方都后撤。”这最终是赫鲁晓夫和肯尼迪的决定。因此，这才是真正具有深远影响的。俄罗斯即便痛苦不已，也吞下了波罗的海国家、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、斯洛伐克和斯洛文尼亚。而对于乌克兰和格鲁吉亚，则更多是因为地理因素，是因为帕默斯顿勋爵，是因为第一次克里米亚战争，是因为导弹系统，这些是导致战争的核心原因。

Is there anybody else? Because maybe close. You want to be the last one? Oh, no, I say. Oh. Can you still continue? Sure. No, you come for the lunch. I don't take you. Thank you very much, Professor Sacks, for coming. You've mentioned that the European Union needs to formulate its own foreign policy. In the past, the German Franco Alliance was a big driver for those policies. Now, with the Ukraine war, arguably, that received a crack, do you think that in the future when the European Union is going to formulate this new foreign policy, that they are going to be again in the front seat, or should it be other countries or other blocks trying to make that change? Thank you very much.

是否还有其他人想要发言？因为可能会议快结束了。你想成为最后一个发言的人吗？哦，不，我只是随便问问。哦，你还可以继续吗？当然可以。不，你可以来参加午餐会。我不会帮你谢幕。非常感谢萨克斯教授的到来。您提到欧盟需要制定自己的外交政策。过去，德法联盟是这些政策的重要推动者。现在，由于乌克兰战争，这种联盟可能出现了裂痕，您认为在未来欧盟制定新外交政策时，他们是否会再次走在前面，还是应该由其他国家或集团来推动这种变化？非常感谢。

Oh, it's hard. It's hard because, of course, you don't yet have a constitution for Europe, which really underpins a European foreign policy. And it can't be by unanimity. There has to be a structure in which Europe can speak as Europe, even with some dissent, but with the European policy. I don't want to oversimplify how to get there exactly, but even with the structures you have, you could do a lot better with negotiating directly. The first rule is your diplomats should be diplomats, not secretaries of war. APPLAUSE Honestly, that would go halfway, at least, to where you want to go.

哦，这很困难。困难在于欧洲目前还没有一部宪法来真正支撑欧洲的外交政策。而且，这不能通过一致同意来实现。必须有一个结构来使欧洲能够以欧洲的名义发声，即便有一些分歧，但仍然是欧洲的政策。我不想过于简化地描述如何实现这一目标，但即使在现有的结构下，通过直接谈判，你可以做得更好。第一个原则是，你的外交官应该是外交官，而不是战争秘书。掌声。说实话，这至少能带你达到一半的目标。

A diplomat is a very special kind of talent. A diplomat is trained to sit together with the other side and to listen, to shake hands, to smile, and to be pleasant. It's very hard. It's a skill. It's training. It's a profession. It's not a game. You need that kind of diplomacy. I'm sorry. We are not hearing anything like that. I'll just make a couple complaints. First, Europe is not NATO, as I said. I thought Stoltenberg was the worst, but I was wrong. It just keeps getting worse. Could someone in NATO stop talking for God's sake about more war? And could NATO stop speaking for Europe? And Europe stop thinking it's NATO. This is the first absolute point.

一位外交官是一种非常特殊的人才。外交官受过训练，可以与对方坐在一起倾听，握手，微笑，并保持友好。这是一项非常困难的技能，是一种职业训练，不是游戏。这种外交手段是非常需要的。对不起，我们却听不到这样的声音。我有几点不满。首先，正如我所说，欧洲并不是北约。我曾以为斯托尔滕贝格是最糟糕的，但我错了，情况只是在不断恶化。难道北约中就没有人能停止谈论更多的战争吗？难道北约能不再代表欧洲发声吗？欧洲能不再认为自己是北约吗？这是首要的基本问题。

Second, I'm sorry, but your High Representative Vice Presidents need to become diplomats. Diplomacy means going to Moscow, inviting the President to be able to do this. Your Russian counterpart here, discussing this doesn't happen till now. So this is really my point. Now, I believe that Europe should become more integrated and more unified in the years ahead. I'm a strong believer in subsidiarity. So we were discussing, I don't think, housing policy is really Europe's main issue. I think this can be handled at the local level or at the national level. I don't see it as a European issue, but I don't see foreign policy as being a 27-country issue.

其次，我很抱歉，但你们的高级代表副主席需要成为外交官。外交意味着要去莫斯科，邀请总统参与进来。到目前为止，你们的俄罗斯对等方还未进行这些讨论。这就是我的重点所在。现在，我相信欧洲在未来几年应该变得更加一体化和统一。我十分相信“权力下放”的原则。我们之前讨论过，我认为住房政策并不是真正的欧洲主要问题。我觉得这可以在地方或国家层面解决，我不认为这是一个欧洲的问题，但我认为外交政策不应该由27个国家分别处理。

I see it being as a European issue. And I see security being at a European level. I think things need to be readjusted, but I'd like to see more Europe for trula European issues and maybe less Europe for things that are properly subsidiary to Europe at the national and the local level. And I hope that such an evolution can take place. You know when the world talks about great powers right now, they talk about US, Russia, China. I include India, and I really want to include Europe, and I really want to include Africa as an African Union. And I want that to happen. But you'll notice on the list Europe doesn't show up right now. And this is because there is no European foreign policy.

我认为这是一个欧洲问题，我认为安全问题应该在欧洲层面上解决。我觉得需要进行一些调整，但我希望看到在真正属于欧洲的问题上，欧洲能够发挥更大的作用，而在那些更适合由国家和地方处理的事务上，欧洲可以少介入。我希望这样的变化能够实现。你知道，当今世界谈论大国时，他们会提到美国、俄罗斯、中国。我会把印度包括在内，并且我真的很希望能够把欧洲和作为非洲联盟的非洲也包括在内。然而，目前的名单上并没有欧洲。这是因为没有统一的欧洲对外政策。

Okay. Maybe after you run more than we when I close. Is there anybody who wanted, I would prefer a woman actually. Yes. You want to know, first, first, this gentleman and then you close. Okay. Sorry for this one. Thank you very much. And thank you very much, Professor, for this very courageous speech, very clear speech also that you made. I'm an MEP from Luxembourg. My question is the following. What are the long term consequences of this lost war? We lost the war. Now we have an uncertain future for NATO. We have also clearly, and you referred to it, the marginalization of Europe. We have a strengthening of the BRICS countries, which can be rivals in many respects. So will there be a future for a collective West over the next 20 or 30 years?

好的。也许在我结束时你比我们跑得更多。有谁想发言的吗？其实我更希望是位女士。好的。你想知道，首先是这位先生，然后你再结束。好的。对这个问题感到抱歉。非常感谢你教授，你的演讲非常勇敢，也非常清晰。我是来自卢森堡的欧洲议会议员。我的问题如下：这场失败的战争会有什么长期后果？我们输了这场战争。现在，北约面临不确定的未来。显然，正如你所提到的，欧洲被边缘化了。我们看到，金砖国家的实力越来越强，在许多方面可能成为我们的对手。那么，在接下来的20到30年里，集体西方会有未来吗？

Thank you very much. I don't believe there is a collective West. I believe that there is a United States and Europe that are in some areas in parallel interests and in many areas not in parallel interest. I want Europe to lead sustainable development, climate transformation, global decency. I believe if the world looked more like Europe, it would be a happier, more peaceful, safer world. And longevity and better food, by the way. But just saying, in any event, Europe has a vocation that is rather different from the American tradition, and frankly from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, because it's been 200 years of Anglo-Saxon hegemony or aspirational hegemony. The British still believe they've run the world. It's amazing what nostalgia means. They don't even stop. It's almost like a Monty Python skit, actually.

谢谢。我不认为存在一个所谓的“集体西方”。我认为美国与欧洲在某些领域有共同利益，但在许多领域则没有。我希望欧洲能够在可持续发展、气候转型和全球道德上引领潮流。我相信，如果世界更像欧洲，它会变得更加幸福、和平和安全。而且人们会更长寿，食物也会更好。总之，欧洲的使命与美国的传统有所不同，也与盎格鲁-撒克逊传统有所不同，因为两百年来盎格鲁-撒克逊文化主导或试图主导世界。英国人至今仍认为他们掌控着世界。这种怀旧情感非常有趣，让人停不下来。这几乎就像一出《巨蟒剧团》的滑稽短剧。

But in any event, where was I? I'm thinking of Monty Python when the night gets all his limbs cut off and says, everything's fine. I'm victorious. That's Britain, unfortunately. And so it's really terrible. So I don't believe in the collective West. I don't believe in the global South. I don't believe in all these geographies don't even make sense because I actually look at maps a lot and the global South is mostly in the North. And the West is not even West. And so I don't even understand what this is about. You believe that we could be in a true age of abundance if we got our heads on straight. We're in the biggest technological advance in human history. It's truly amazing what can be done right now.

不过，不管怎样，我刚才说到哪里了？这让我想起了蒙提·派森里的一个场景，骑士的四肢都被砍掉了，但他说，一切都好，我是胜利者。这不幸地反映了英国的现状，而这实在是糟糕透顶。所以，我不相信所谓的西方集体，也不相信所谓的全球南方。这些地理划分根本没有意义，因为我经常看地图，所谓的全球南方大多在北方，而西方也不在西边。所以我根本不明白这说的是什么。不过，如果我们能够理智行事的话，你相信我们可能正处于一个真正丰裕的时代。我们正经历人类历史上最大的技术进步，现在能做到的事情实在令人惊叹。

I marvel at the fact that somebody who knows no chemistry won the Nobel Peace Prize for chemistry because he's very good at deep neural networks, a genius, Demis Hasabas. They figured out protein fully that generations of biochemists spent their whole lives on. And now DeepMind figured out how to do it by the thousands of proteins. We have friends that spent their entire life on one protein, brilliant friends. And now what we can do. So if actually and same with renewable energy as everybody knows the prices come down by more than two orders of magnitude the costs. We could transform the planet. We could protect the climate system. We could protect biodiversity. We could ensure every child gets a good education. We could do so many wonderful things right now.

我感到惊讶的是，一位不懂化学的人因其在深度神经网络方面的杰出能力而获得了诺贝尔化学奖，他就是天才Demis Hasabas。他们破解了几代生物化学家穷尽一生研究的蛋白质。现在，DeepMind想出了一种方法，可以对数千种蛋白质进行分析。我们有一些朋友，把一辈子都奉献给研究一种蛋白质，他们都是聪明的头脑。而现在我们能够做到什么呢？同样，在可再生能源领域，大家都知道成本已经下降了两个数量级以上。我们有机会改变这个星球，可以保护气候系统，可以保护生物多样性，可以确保每个孩子都能接受良好的教育。我们现在可以做很多美好的事情。

And so what do we need to do that? In my view, we need peace, most importantly. And my basic point is there are no deep reasons for conflict anywhere. As every conflict I study is just a mistake. It's not we are not struggling for labans from. That idea that came from Maltuz and it became a Nazi idea was always a wrong idea. It was a mistake. A fundamental intellectual mistake. An intellectual mistake, by the way, because leading scientists adopted the idea that we had race wars, we had national wars, we had wars of survival because we don't have enough on the planet. As an economist, I can tell you, we have plenty on the planet for everybody's development. Plenty. We're not in a conflict with China. We're not in a conflict with Russia. If we calm down, if you ask about the long term, the long term is very good. Thank you. The long term, if we don't blow ourselves up, is very good.

所以，我们需要做些什么来实现这个目标呢？在我看来，最重要的是需要和平。我的基本观点是，任何地方都没有深层次的冲突原因。我研究的每一个冲突都是一个错误。我们并不是在为“生存空间”而斗争。这个源于马尔萨斯的观点，后来成为纳粹思想的一个部分，是一直以来的错误。这是一个根本性的智识错误。顺便说一下，这个智识错误是因为一些著名的科学家接受了这样的观点：我们有种族战争、国家战争、生存战争，因为我们在地球上资源不够。但作为一个经济学家，我可以告诉你，地球上的资源非常充足，足以供每个人发展。我们没有与中国、俄罗斯发生冲突。如果我们冷静下来，放眼长远，未来是非常乐观的。谢谢。如果我们不把自己毁掉，长远来看，前景是非常美好的。

And so this is what we should aim for. A positive shared vision under international law. Because of our technology, things operate at a regional scale now. It used to be, it was villages. Then it was small areas. Then it was unification of countries. Now it's regional. That's not just because regions are wonderful. It's because the underlying technological reality, say Europe should be an integrated area. By transport, by fast rail, by digital, by, and so there's Europe. The politics follows the technological realities to a very important extent. We're in a world of regions now.

所以，这就是我们应该追求的目标：在国际法下实现一个积极的共同愿景。由于技术的发展，事物现在是以区域为单位来运作的。过去，这是一个村庄的问题，然后是小区域，然后是国家统一。现在则是区域化。这并不是因为区域本身有多么特别，而是因为背后的技术现实，比如欧洲应该是一个一体化的区域。通过交通、快速铁路、数字技术等途径，使得欧洲成为一个整体。政治在很大程度上是紧随技术现实而变化的。我们现在生活在一个以区域为主导的世界中。

So Europe should be Europe with subsidiarity. Don't lose all of the wonderful, wonderful national and local elements. But Europe should be Europe. So the good side is, let's, I want Europe to have diplomacy. For example, with ASEAN. I spend a lot of time with the ASEAN countries. If the EU green deal, wonderful idea. I said many years ago, okay, to the ASEAN leaders, make an ASEAN green deal. And then talk with the Europeans so that you have this wonderful relationship, trade, investment technology. So last year they announced an ASEAN green deal. What did Europe do about it? Nothing. It said, sorry we're in the Ukraine war, thank you. No interest.

所以欧洲应当在“辅助性”原则下保持其特性。不要失去所有那些美妙的国家和地方元素，但欧洲仍然应当是一个整体。好的一面是，我希望欧洲能够积极参与外交，比如与东盟（ASEAN）国家的外交。我花了很多时间和东盟国家交流。如果欧盟的绿色新政是个好的想法，那么我多年前就对东盟领导人说，制定一个东盟的绿色新政，然后与欧洲人对话，这样你们就能在贸易、投资和技术方面建立一种美好的关系。去年，他们宣布了一个东盟绿色新政。那么欧洲对此做了什么呢？没做什么，他们说：“对不起，我们正忙于乌克兰战争，谢谢。”完全没有兴趣。

So this is my point. The prospects are very positive if we construct the peace. Because we have to go, I get all the time messages that I saw here leave the room. Can you still make something very short? Do you think that a way out of the conflict is some kind of style of philanthropisation? Is that what you would have, sorry, is that what you would have liked to see in Sweden and Finland foreign policy as an example? Is that instead of them becoming member of NATO, is that the way that you would have liked to see these countries handle their foreign policy? And do you think that these countries that border Russia should just kind of succumb to their fate that, okay, we can't provoke Russia, like this is the way we have to live?

所以这是我的观点。如果我们能够构建和平，前景是非常积极的。因为我得走了，我一直收到信息让我离开房间。能够简短点说吗？你是否认为冲突的解决办法是一种慈善化的方式？这是否是你希望瑞典和芬兰在外交政策中采取的例子？这是否意味着你希望这些国家不加入北约，而是用这种方式来处理他们的外交政策？你是否认为这些与俄罗斯接壤的国家应该屈从于命运，认为我们不能激怒俄罗斯，这就是我们必须生活的方式？

Yeah, very good. Excellent question. And let me just report one part about Finlandisation. Finlandisation landed Finland number one in the World Happiness Report year after year. Rich, successful, happy and secure. That's prenatal. So Finlandisation was a wonderful thing. Number one in the World. When Sweden and Finland and Austria were neutral. Bravo, smart. When Ukraine was neutral, smart. If you have two superpowers, keep them apart a little bit. You don't have to be right with your nose up against each other, especially if one of them, the US is pushing its nose into the other one. And so Finlandisation, to my mind, has a very positive connotation.

好的，非常好。这是个很好的问题。让我来谈谈芬兰化。芬兰化使芬兰年复一年地在《世界幸福报告》中排名第一。富有、成功、幸福且安全。这一切都是在“胎教”阶段完成的。所以，芬兰化是一件非常好的事情，世界排名第一。当瑞典、芬兰和奥地利保持中立时，令人称赞，聪明。当乌克兰中立时，也是明智的。如果有两个超级大国，最好彼此保持一点距离。你不需要互相贴得太近，尤其是当其中一个，也就是美国，试图插手到另一个国家事务中的时候。所以在我看来，芬兰化有非常积极的意义。

So does Austrianisation. Austria 1955 signed its neutrality. The Soviet army left. And Austria is a wonderful place, by the way. Absolutely wonderful. And so this is basic how to avoid conflict. If the United States had any sense at all, it would have left these countries as a neutral space in between the US military and Russia. But that's where the US lost it. Thank you very much.

奥地利化也是如此。奥地利在1955年签署了中立协议，苏联军队撤离了。顺便说一下，奥地利是一个非常美好的地方，绝对美好。这基本上就是如何避免冲突的方式。如果美国有一点头脑，它就应该让这些国家作为美国军队和俄罗斯之间的中立地带。但正是在这方面，美国失去了理智。非常感谢。

I just want to end with an appeal. I think we both agree that we will have the war will end within a month or two. And that means the fighting will end. It doesn't mean that we will have peace in Europe. The peace in Europe that has to be done by us, by Europeans, not by a president from the United States. We have to create this peace in Europe, which includes, of course, Belarus, Russia, and all these other countries. So we have to do something.

我想以一个呼吁结束。我认为我们都同意，战争会在一个月或两个月内结束。这意味着战斗会停止，但并不意味着欧洲会迎来和平。欧洲的和平需要由我们来实现，由欧洲人，而不是由美国总统来实现。我们必须在欧洲创造这样的和平，当然这包括白俄罗斯、俄罗斯和其他所有国家。因此，我们必须采取行动。

And we are here as a parliamentarian. We represent people. They are the only legitimate democratic and legitimate institution in the European Union. Maybe we should have become all a little bit more proactive in trying to move this peace process forwards across party lines. I don't know how many parties here really are, but that we can talk to each other without saying, are you from this party or from this party? I think we really have to concentrate.

作为议会议员，我们在这里代表人民。他们是欧盟中唯一合法的民主机构。也许我们都应该更加积极地推动这一和平进程，不分党派。我不知道这里到底有多少个政党，但我们应该能够在不问你是哪个党派的情况下互相对话。我认为我们真的需要集中精力。

If here we could not take more initiative from the parliament, vis-a-vis the commission and saying, we are presenting the people, not you, we are presenting the people and these people in Europe want peace. And that's what we should go. So maybe this is the beginning of one. We will make every month. I will organize with my colleagues. And it's the same thing here about different topics, which we are all around it.

如果在这里我们无法从议会中获得更多的主动权，相对于委员会而言，我们要说的是：我们代表的是人民，而不是你。我们代表的这些欧洲人民想要的是和平。而这就是我们应该走的方向。所以也许这是一个开始。我会和我的同事们每个月都组织这样的活动。这也适用于我们周围的其他不同主题。

And we hope that this one we get a discussion that is different, what we have in the plenum, where we basically don't have a discussion, but that we have a discussion also across the party and invite also people from other political parties. We don't bite anybody. Let's discuss it. In the end, we want all want the same peace for the next generation. And I have plenty of children, grandchildren, you too. And that's what we need. Thank you very much, Professor.

我们希望这次的讨论能有所不同。在全体会议上，我们基本上没有进行真正的讨论。而这次，我们希望能在党内外展开讨论，同时邀请其他政党的人士参与。我们不会排斥任何人。让我们一起探讨这个问题。最终，我们都希望为下一代带来和平。我有很多子孙，你也有。这正是我们所需要的。非常感谢您, 教授。