腐女

匈牙利峰会与历史书上的普京_我的网站

一 |     

    Illustration: Tang Tengfei/GT
Some Indian media outlets and regional political forces have recently sought to amplify allegations of an unverified China-India border confrontation, while official signals from Beijing and New Delhi have emphasized stability, communication and the importance of managing differences through established mechanisms.
The contrasting narratives have emerged at a moment when exchanges between China and India in various fields have gradually resumed, and cooperation has been advanced in an orderly manner, Chinese experts noted, warning that sensationalizing border-related claims could disrupt the hard-won momentum in bilateral ties and the two countries should prevent the boundary question from hijacking their broader relationship.
Contrasting narratives 
The latest media speculation was partly triggered by claims made by the People's Party of the so-called "Arunachal Pradesh" (PPA), a regional Indian political party. According to The Arunachal Times, a local Indian newspaper, a four-member PPA "fact-finding committee" led by former minister and party adviser Kahfa Bengia visited the so-called "Taksing area" (known as Taxin, in Zangnan, Southwest China's Xizang Autonomous Region) on July 10 and subsequently alleged that Indian forces had been prevented from accessing several patrolling points.
The claims were then amplified by Indian news outlet ThePrint, which reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources, that Chinese and Indian patrols had allegedly come "face to face" near Taxin in late July.
The outlet further claimed that Chinese personnel subsequently left before returning in early August and setting up "two or three tents."
However, ThePrint acknowledged that sources in India's defense and security establishment said the "situation was well under control."
Some other Indian reports have also questioned the sensational allegations. India Today reported on Wednesday that Indian government sources dismissed social media claims circulating about what was described as "slow encroachment," while noting that similar allegations regarding the area had previously been rejected by local authorities and the Indian Army.
In fact, the claims stand in contrast to the official diplomatic signals coming from both sides.
Asked on Tuesday about reports concerning the border, Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said New Delhi takes border matters seriously and reiterated India's position that "the state of the border affairs will reflect on the state of our larger bilateral ties," according to a media briefing released by the ministry on its website on Tuesday.  
He also referred to existing mechanisms for dealing with border issues and preventing misunderstanding and miscalculation, according to the briefing. 
Responding on Wednesday to questions from Bloomberg and Reuters concerning social media claims about stepped-up Chinese military activity and a possible new border incident, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun said, "The China-India border situation is generally stable at the moment." 
"China and India held the 36th meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) on China-India Border Affairs last week. The two sides agreed to maintain communication via diplomatic and military channels and jointly uphold peace and tranquility in the border areas," Guo said. 
Qian Feng, director of the Research Department at Tsinghua University's National Strategy Institute, told the Global Times on Thursday that the fact that the two sides continue to communicate through established channels shows that the border situation has not developed in the direction of escalation portrayed by some Indian media.
Such hype also came amid another development concerning Zangnan. India on August 7 announced what it called "standard" names for 27 locations in so-called "Arunachal Pradesh," a move that some Indian media outlets portrayed as an effort to counter China and further connected with the latest reports of border tensions.
China has firmly rejected the move. Responding to the issue on Monday, spokesperson Guo said, "Zangnan region is China's territory. China does not recognize the so-called 'Arunachal Pradesh' illegally set up by India." 
Guo said India's attempt to replace names long used by China with its so-called "standard names" is "illegal, null and void," and stressed that it would not change the fact that Zangnan belongs to China. 
Hu Zhiyong, a professor from Zhejiang International Studies University and a research fellow at the Institute of International Relations at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday that border and security issues have traditionally been susceptible to political manipulation in India's domestic politics. "When domestic economic and social problems become difficult to address, issues involving the borders with China or Pakistan can easily be pushed to the forefront to divert public attention," Hu explained.
He said economic pressures, concerns over foreign investment and the domestic business environment, together with accumulated public sentiment, could provide incentives for some political forces to magnify external disputes.
Hu argued that another problem lies in the tendency of some Indian political figures to bind the boundary question too closely to the entire China-India relationship. "The boundary issue is one part of bilateral relations, which also encompass political, economic, diplomatic, security and people-to-people exchanges," Hu said. "It should not be allowed to hijack the entire relationship."
Dialogue matters 
According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry's statement of the August 6 meeting, the two sides conducted constructive dialogue in a candid and friendly manner, had an in-depth exchange of views on further implementing the consensus reached during the 24th Round of Talks between the Special Representatives of China and India on the Boundary Question, and agreed to jointly prepare for the coming 25th Round of SR talks. The two sides also discussed boundary delimitation, border management, mechanism development, cross-border exchange and cooperation. The two sides agreed to continue to maintain diplomatic and military communication, and jointly safeguard peace and tranquility in the border areas.
Hu pointed out that the timing of the latest speculation is noteworthy, as border issues have at times been used by some forces in India in an attempt to gain leverage ahead of important bilateral interactions. 
The 36th WMCC meeting demonstrates that the two sides possess functioning channels through which disagreements can be addressed. This is particularly important as China and India seek to sustain the improvement in relations and prepare for further high-level interactions, said Chinese observers.
"The boundary dispute is a complicated issue left over from history and cannot be resolved overnight," Qian said. "What matters is to keep diplomatic and military communication channels open, promptly handle frontline frictions through established mechanisms, expand people-to-people exchanges and strengthen coordination under multilateral frameworks such as BRICS and the SCO."
。    当地时间10月16日，特朗普在个人社交媒体上证实，与俄罗斯总统普京进行长达两个半小时的电话会谈。

二 |                    会谈是俄方主动发起的，有媒体猜测是想抢在泽连斯基赴美之前先给特朗普“下药”。

三 |                    通话期间，特朗普提议于未来两周左右在匈牙利首都布达佩斯举行高峰会，以寻求战争结束，具体日期取决于先前两国外长的会晤结果。                   根据媒体放出的消息，普京在谈话中做了一些让步——在继续坚持要求乌军退出顿涅茨克州剩余领土的前提下，表示愿意给予乌方扎波罗热方向的领土补偿（尚不清楚是否是等量面积领土）。                   战斧导弹射程内的俄罗斯重要目标。泽连斯基本想带着美国提供战斧导弹的承诺回国，怎料事与愿违。

四 |                    说来有趣，每次与普京通话或见面后，特朗普的立场都会偏向俄罗斯一点，谈得时间越长偏向越大。                   不同于泽连斯基以及欧洲政治人物，普京可以在一些敏感议题上尽情挑特朗普喜欢的说，诸如：2020年大选是你赢了，拜登偷走了选举胜利；如果是你在，这场战争根本就不会发生；你是今年和平奖当仁不让的得主，那些左派人士对你有偏见……                    正因如此，乌克兰和欧洲国家其实很不希望二人接触。                   上次阿拉斯加会晤结束后，欧洲派出了包括英国、法国、德国、意大利领导人，欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩、北约秘书长吕特和芬兰总统斯塔布在内的强大阵容第一时间赴白宫磋商，好不容易才把特朗普给“拉”回来。                   而就在10月16日的通话后，特朗普立场果然又发生了转变。                   次日与泽连斯基会谈时，他明确拒绝向乌克兰提供“战斧”导弹，美媒称白宫会谈“气氛紧张”，泽连斯基本人则表示“对话尖锐”。                   结束与泽连斯基的会晤后，特朗普离开白宫前往佛罗里达州海湖庄园度周末，他在下飞机时对记者说：                    “俄乌应按照现有战线立即停战，否则就太复杂了，应当就地停下，各自宣称胜利。

五 | ”                    接下来让我们顺着特朗普“接触线立即无条件停火”的思路往下走，试着分析一下该场景的可行性。                   一                    乌克兰和欧洲目前是同意“立即无条件停火”的，这一方面是因为乌军战场处于劣势，另一方面也是担心来自美国的支持发生动摇（拜登时期乌克兰是不同意无条件停火的）。                   在立即停火的前提下，乌克兰的核心诉求有两条：排在第一位的是获得安全保障，其次为注入重建资金。                   俄罗斯的诉求则有些复杂，至少包括三条：俄方最希望得到的是顿涅茨克州剩余领土，其次为解除制裁和限制北约在乌克兰乃至东欧地区的军事存在（包括阻止乌克兰加入北约）。                   为什么特朗普说“否则就太复杂了”呢？                    因为无论是乌克兰的两条诉求还是俄罗斯的三条诉求，都非常难以解决，尤其是涉及到领土问题。                   二                    相对于今年春夏那会儿，普京现在的心气略微低了一些。                   俄军2025年确实取得了很多进展，但真正具有战略意义的仅库尔斯克一个方向（还是在朝鲜生力军的帮助下），即收复失地并建立缓冲区，其他方向的斩获只能是战术层级的，远远达不到压迫乌克兰低头求和的程度。                   按照当前战场形势做推断，顿涅茨克南线的红军城或在一到两个月内拿下，但完全占领顿涅茨克州剩余的堡垒城市群可能还需要2026年一年的时间，代价和变数都很大。                   对内普京政府不愿意扩大征兵，担心社会经济层面生变，因此只能用略多于乌克兰的兵力一点点啃，形成不了压倒性优势。                   实际上，在特朗普上台后，战争对于俄罗斯来说已经不完全是与西方的军事对抗，它具备了“以打促谈”“通过停火谈判向美国索取部分战略利益”的第二重意义。                   红军城俄军是铁了心要拿下的，不可能因为和谈而放弃。

六 |                    三                    在“立即无条件现状停火”的大条件下，特朗普需要拿出一些小筹码去安抚俄罗斯，其中最有可能的是削减美国在欧洲的军事存在。                   特朗普团队认为，美国需要思考利用俄乌谈判追求超越乌克兰冲突本身的战略目标，比如：国际能源格局重塑、甩掉防卫欧洲的战略包袱，以及让俄罗斯与中国的关系变得不那么密切。                   特朗普心目中的俄罗斯没有大多数西方舆论渲染的那样“坏”，它只是因为在现实政治中长期被西方排斥、无视，因而感到沮丧、挫败和愤怒，并不得不加强与中国的关系。

七 |                    如果普京答应停火，特朗普不介意把减少、限制驻欧美军数量作为条件之一，这跟他的理念丝毫不冲突。                   文章后半段，让我们讲一个普京的小故事。                   2008年秋天，时任俄罗斯总理、刚卸任总统的普京，询问了莫斯科回声广播电台总编维涅季克托夫一个问题：“在我的两个总统任期中，有哪些事迹足以写进学校的历史教科书里？”                    维涅季克托夫曾是历史教师，他回答普京道：“会被记录在历史教科书里的是促成莫斯科牧首教区与海外俄罗斯东正教（一个长期忠于沙皇俄国的流亡教会）重归于一。”                    普京惊讶地问道：“就这些吗？”                    答曰：“是的。”                    众所周知，普京执政的前八年是俄罗斯走出苏联解体泥潭的关键时期，2000年到2008年俄罗斯经济规模从不到2000亿美元飙升至1.7万亿美元，而如今俄罗斯的名义GDP也只有2.2万亿美元，与2013年水平大致相同。

八 |                    不过很可惜，在历史老师眼中这些都不重要。                   时间来到2015年，普京又问了维涅季克托夫同样的问题。                   后者回答道：“俄罗斯和乌克兰的历史教科书上会多这样一句话——‘赫鲁晓夫把克里米亚给了乌克兰，普京又把它收了回来。’”                    普京显然不满足于跟赫鲁晓夫这种档次的人物出现在历史书的同一段落里。                   在克里姆林宫前厅里，至今还陈列着彼得一世、凯瑟琳二世和亚历山大二世等沙俄帝王的半身像，他们才是普京的目标。                   根据俄总统新闻秘书佩斯可夫的讲法，总统一直都在阅读，主要是阅读俄罗斯历史，包括各种历史政治人物的回忆录。

九 |                    尤其是2020年至2021年疫情封锁期间，普京更加沉浸于阅读历史，这一次他不仅阅读，还提笔写作。                   2021年7月，普京发表了一篇本人亲自撰写的长篇历史文章，也就是大名鼎鼎的《论俄罗斯人和乌克兰人的历史统一》。                   再后来便有了震惊世界的“特别军事行动”。                   2023年8月，俄罗斯出版了一本新的历史教科书，从当年9月起供高三年级学生使用。                   该书出现了大量关于2014年至2023年事态的章节，当然也包括在乌克兰的“特别军事行动”。

十 |                    书中写道：                    “冷战后，俄罗斯对西方采取了友好之举，努力改善和美国情报部门之间的关系，修建供应欧洲的天然气管道，但美国后来决定防止欧洲在俄罗斯保障下实现能源独立，反复阻挠俄对外供气。”                    “他们将俄罗斯拉扯进各种各样的冲突，终极目标是要摧毁俄罗斯，控制其丰富的矿产。”                    “发起‘特别军事行动’是为了阻止乌克兰加入北约，如果基辅成为该联盟的成员，它可能会试图重新夺回克里米亚或俄罗斯支持的乌东地区，这反过来将导致更广泛的战争和文明的终结。”                    “当下，与我军对抗的是一支被灌输意识形态、配备北约武器、按照他们的标准训练、并由外国雇佣兵和教官补充的乌军……”                    了却君王天下事，赢得生前身后名。                   与一句话就能讲完的克里米亚事件相比，这一次历史书上至少会留下长长的一段，只不过这一段的结尾我们现在还不得而知。                   本文来自微信公众号：江宁知府，作者：印闲生。

Current article:http://www.choumaimuwogenkuzhainuan.bond/a577/zvz7z7.doc

Published on:20:44:23