FP:為何不幫助烏克蘭



作者：Raphael S. Cohen and Glan Gentile
來源：Foreign Policy
日期：Jun 14, 2023

摘要：
隨著俄烏戰爭戰火延續，美國內部已經傳出呼聲要求加強管控對烏克蘭援助，甚至是全面停止援助，這種言論在美國提高其債務上限之後達到了最高峰。但美國作為最大和最關鍵的軍事援助國，其國內任何對烏政策的轉變，都可能會讓烏克蘭反攻或戰事現況面臨風險。
 
  • 一個好的軍事戰略需要精確地定義目標（目的），制定確切可行的政策（方法），並分配足夠的資源（手段）實現這些目標和方法。
  • 美國對烏克蘭援助的爭論圍繞在資源的分配上，但是拜登對目的只有模糊的定義，奧斯汀評論說，美國讓烏克蘭人決定最終目標。
  • 美國在對烏政策上的猶豫，導致了其軍事支援偶爾會延遲，或者給付的並不情願，這會對烏克蘭作戰的方式產生反作用力。
    • 美國政策制定者懷疑烏克蘭人無法操作複雜的美國武器系統，但烏克蘭人證明了他們做得到。
    • 美國擔心增加持續支持烏克爛會導致衝突升級，但這種擔憂無法完全說服人。普丁還沒有使用核武器，但烏克蘭已經用非美國武器攻擊了俄羅斯，因此就算俄羅斯真的決定要報復，烏克蘭和美國的北約盟友應是首當其衝，美國並非第一線的承擔者。
    • 如果美國打算讓烏克蘭在未來的俄烏和平談判中掌握更好的籌碼，其就必須重新建立威懾力，讓俄羅斯相信進一步的侵略不僅徒勞無功，而且還必須付出高昂代價高昂。更好的武器也可以嚇阻未來的侵略。
  • 雖然美國在烏克蘭戰爭中的策略是合理的，國會希望有更高的問責及監管權限也是可以理解的，但之間的矛盾，導致美國對俄烏戰爭的政策混亂。
  • 引用作者的話說：「如果西方國家的行動更果斷、更具戰略性，烏克蘭將能夠更好地進行反攻，達成更持久的戰後解決方案。」
 
Summary:

As the Russo-Ukraine War drags on, there are calls within the US to tighten the supervision of the US's aid to Ukraine or to stop it entirely, especially after the US raised its debt ceiling. The calls expose Ukraine to risks as they conduct a new counteroffensive and may change the war's course because the US has been the largest and most crucial military donor.

  • A good military involves precisely defining your objectives (ends), formulating practical methods to achieve the goals (ways), and allocating sufficient resources (means) to realize the objectives and methods.
  • The debate over US's aid to Ukraine revolves around means. However, Biden only vaguely defined the ends, and Austin commented that the US lets Ukrainians decide the ultimate goals.
  • US's ambiguity led to reluctance and delays in providing support. It is also occasionally counterproductive to the ways to accomplish Ukraine's objective.
    • US policymakers doubted Ukrainians could operate complex US weapons systems, but Ukrainians disproved them.
    • The US fears increasing support will lead to further escalation of the conflict, but the concerns are questionable. Putin has not resorted to nuclear weapons yet, but Ukraine has struck Russia with non-US weapons. Even if Russia retaliates, the US is not the first receiver, but Ukraine and US's NATO allies are.
    • If the US intends for Ukraine to have the best cards in peace negotiations, deterrence must be re-established to convince Russia that further aggression is futile and costly. Better weapons for Ukraine also deter future aggression.
  • Although US's strategy in the Ukrainian war is justifiable and Congress's hopes for higher accountability are understandable, it leads to a suboptimal and messy US strategy for supporting a war.
  • To quote the authors: "Had the West acted more decisively and strategically, Ukraine would be in a better shape to undertake its counteroffensive and reach a more durable postwar settlement."
 

 
回上層