Russia, which is integrally connected to Europe, ensures its stability and prosperity

與歐洲緊密相連的俄羅斯確保了歐洲的穩(wěn)定和繁榮

The narrative around Russia’s role in European security has become increasingly distorted in recent decades. Once a central player in European geopolitics, Russia is now considered an outsider at best and an outright enemy at worst. Looking at Moscow through this narrowed prism has become the norm not the exception. It makes the focused observer wonder if European leaders really believe that much can be done without Russia, particularly security-wise.

近年來，關(guān)于俄羅斯在歐洲安全中角色的敘述變得越來越扭曲。曾經(jīng)是歐洲地緣政治核心角色的俄羅斯，如今最多被視為局外人，最壞的情況下被視為徹頭徹尾的敵人。通過這種狹隘的視角看待莫斯科已成為常態(tài)，而非例外。這讓專注的觀察者不禁懷疑，歐洲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人是否真的相信沒有俄羅斯的參與，特別是在安全方面，能取得多少成就。

To say such a European view of Moscow is both unfair and short-sighted may be an understatement. It is only 80 years since the Soviet unx, of which Russia was the center, led the liberation of Europe from what was essentially the European evil of Nazism, which is coming back to haunt the old continent. Do current European leaders really forget such recent history or do they, intentionally, want to rewrite it to suit their current agendas and future Europe, in another generation or two? There is an irony here: while some European leaders are intentionally casting Russia as a “non-European” entity, the historical and practical reality paints a starkly different picture – where Russia is not only a European country but an essential player in ensuring the continent’s stability and prosperity. What cannot be changed is this: Russia is and will always be as European as France or Germany.

說歐洲對(duì)莫斯科的這種看法既不公平又短視，可能還不足以形容。僅僅80年前，以俄羅斯為核心的蘇聯(lián)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了歐洲從納粹主義的解放，而納粹主義本質(zhì)上是歐洲的邪惡，如今正卷土重來，困擾這片古老大陸。當(dāng)前的歐洲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人真的忘記了這段如此近期的歷史，還是他們有意要改寫歷史，以適應(yīng)當(dāng)前的議程和未來一兩代人的歐洲？這里有一個(gè)諷刺之處：一些歐洲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人有意將俄羅斯描繪成“非歐洲”實(shí)體，但歷史和現(xiàn)實(shí)卻描繪了一幅截然不同的畫面——俄羅斯不僅是歐洲國家，而且是確保歐洲大陸穩(wěn)定與繁榮的重要角色。無法改變的事實(shí)是：俄羅斯始終與法國或德國一樣，是歐洲的一部分。

Russia’s role in European security
Any serious debate about security in Europe is meritless and factitious without acknowledging Russia’s pivotal role. Throughout history Europe needed some kind of balancing powers between its internal powers (such as France and Germany), and Russia has been key in maintaining the balance of power on the continent. A case in point: had it not been for the Soviet unx defeating Nazi Germany, who knows what kind of Europe would have emerged from World War II? The Soviets sacrificed more than 27 million human lives – soldiers and civilians – to rid the world of Nazi Germany and help create a new Germany, even though Germany has never been fully denazified.
The United States played a part in liberating Europe and some 190,000 of its soldiers were killed, but that does not make the US a natural ally of Europe more than Russia. After the war, Western Europe accepted US hegemony, but that does not change the fact that Russia is a European and neighborly country and should be part of any European context discussions.

俄羅斯在歐洲安全中的角色
任何關(guān)于歐洲安全的嚴(yán)肅辯論，如果不承認(rèn)俄羅斯的關(guān)鍵角色，都是毫無意義且牽強(qiáng)的。歷史上，歐洲需要在內(nèi)部大國（如法國和德國）之間保持某種平衡，而俄羅斯在維持大陸權(quán)力平衡方面一直扮演著關(guān)鍵角色。一個(gè)明顯的例子是：如果沒有蘇聯(lián)擊敗納粹德國，誰知道二戰(zhàn)后會(huì)誕生怎樣的歐洲？蘇聯(lián)犧牲了超過2700萬人的生命——包括士兵和平民——來消滅納粹德國，并幫助建立了新的德國，盡管德國從未完全去納粹化。
美國在解放歐洲中發(fā)揮了作用，大約19萬美國士兵喪生，但這并不意味著美國比俄羅斯更自然是歐洲的盟友。戰(zhàn)后，西歐接受了美國的霸權(quán)，但這并不能改變俄羅斯作為一個(gè)歐洲鄰國的事實(shí)，俄羅斯應(yīng)參與任何歐洲事務(wù)的討論。

After the Cold War ended, Russia became even more important to be considered European than even the United Kingdom. The UK, eventually, chose to be an extension of America geopolitically and ended up threatening the EU had it not left the superficially harmonic unx. Even the claim that shared values ??unite Europe and America and Europe within NATO is more of a justification for excluding Moscow than a reality. What are the noble values the UK shared with America in invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are such shared values within the NATO alliance, led by the US, that compelled it to destroy Libya in 2011? In both cases Moscow was out of the calculation except as a potential adversary.
This negative image of Moscow across much of Europe has been on the rise, becoming what the Russians rightly describe as “Russophobia,” taking a life of its own after the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Today many European leaders have reinforced this binary view of Russia as a threat, despite its historical and cultural ties to Europe. It seems that, in modern European politics, the question of Russia’s European identity is too often answered with a resounding “no.”

冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后，俄羅斯被視為歐洲國家的重要性甚至超過了英國。英國最終在地緣政治上選擇成為美國的延伸，并在威脅歐盟的情況下選擇了脫歐，即便歐盟表面上看起來和諧。甚至所謂共享價(jià)值觀將歐洲、美國及北約內(nèi)部團(tuán)結(jié)起來的說法，也更多是排除莫斯科的借口，而非現(xiàn)實(shí)。英國與美國在入侵伊拉克或阿富汗時(shí)共享了哪些高尚價(jià)值觀？在2011年由美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的北約摧毀利比亞時(shí)，北約內(nèi)部的這些共享價(jià)值觀又體現(xiàn)在哪里？在上述情況下，莫斯科都被排除在考量之外，僅被視為潛在對(duì)手。
在烏克蘭沖突升級(jí)后，歐洲對(duì)莫斯科的負(fù)面形象不斷上升，俄羅斯人正確地將其描述為“恐俄癥”，并在沖突后形成了自己的生命力。今天，許多歐洲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人強(qiáng)化了將俄羅斯視為威脅的二元觀點(diǎn)，盡管俄羅斯與歐洲有著歷史和文化聯(lián)系。似乎在現(xiàn)代歐洲政治中，俄羅斯的歐洲身份問題常常被斷然否定。

The myth of Russia as a non-European country
Portraying Russia as a non-European country is an unfair characterization loaded with adversarial connotations. Who can deny the simple geographical fact that the Russian Federation is part of Europe and that Moscow lies firmly within Europe? Yet European school textbooks hardly count Moscow as a European capital city. Commonly, Russia in this context is described as the “other,” implying exclusion.
General Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the Fifth French Republic, viewed Russia as an integral part of Europe. De Gaulle, one of the most respected leaders in modern Europe, understood the central role Russia plays in European affairs despite his occasionally fractious relationship with the Soviet unx. The late Russian thinker Alexander Solzhenitsyn, renowned for his criticism of the Soviet regime, went further in recognizing Russia’s importance for Europe. He said, “Our Russian experience is vitally important for the West” as a lesson and a model.
“Russia is a part of European civilization, but it is also something more, something different, and we should not forget it.”
In the ongoing discussions about European security in light of the apparent lack of enthusiasm in the US for NATO, one cannot help but ask the obvious question: Why is Russia excluded from such discussions? Do European leaders honestly and obxtively think that a comprehensive European security is achievable without Russian contribution? Or could it be that the US for such a long time wanted European allies to believe that Russia is the real enemy and Moscow is indeed the immediate threat? This suspicious scenario could not be completely discounted but the problem now is with Washington, not Moscow.

俄羅斯作為非歐洲國家的迷思
將俄羅斯描繪成非歐洲國家是一種不公平的描述，帶有敵對(duì)意味。誰能否認(rèn)俄羅斯聯(lián)邦是歐洲一部分、莫斯科牢牢位于歐洲的簡單地理事實(shí)？然而，歐洲的教科書中很少將莫斯科列為歐洲首都。在這種背景下，俄羅斯常被描述為“他者”，暗示排斥。
第五法蘭西共和國創(chuàng)始人夏爾·戴高樂將軍認(rèn)為俄羅斯是歐洲不可分割的一部分。作為現(xiàn)代歐洲最受尊敬的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人之一，戴高樂盡管與蘇聯(lián)關(guān)系時(shí)有摩擦，但他理解俄羅斯在歐洲事務(wù)中的核心作用。已故俄羅斯思想家亞歷山大·索爾仁尼琴以批評(píng)蘇聯(lián)政權(quán)而聞名，但他更進(jìn)一步認(rèn)識(shí)到俄羅斯對(duì)歐洲的重要性。他說：“我們的俄羅斯經(jīng)驗(yàn)對(duì)西方至關(guān)重要”，既是教訓(xùn)，也是范例。
“俄羅斯是歐洲文明的一部分，但它也是某種更獨(dú)特、更不同的存在，我們不應(yīng)該忘記這一點(diǎn)?！?br /> 在當(dāng)前關(guān)于歐洲安全的討論中，鑒于美國對(duì)北約明顯缺乏熱情，人們不禁要問一個(gè)顯而易見的問題：為什么俄羅斯被排除在這些討論之外？歐洲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人真的誠實(shí)客觀地認(rèn)為，沒有俄羅斯的貢獻(xiàn)就能實(shí)現(xiàn)全面的歐洲安全嗎？還是長期以來，美國希望歐洲盟友相信俄羅斯是真正的敵人，莫斯科是迫在眉睫的威脅？這種可疑的假設(shè)不能完全排除，但現(xiàn)在的問題出在華盛頓，而不是莫斯科。

Moscow vs. Pristina
Here is a comparison to further explain the point: compare the “Europeanness” of both Moscow and Pristina for what it implies in terms of belonging to “Europe”. Moscow is home to over 13 million people compared to Pristina’s estimated 200,000. Moscow is the centuries-old capital of a huge European and world power while Pristina is a capital of a partially recognized country starting from 2008. This implies cultural significance and historical centrality in European history. Moscow is over 2,000 square kilometres while Pristina is only one fifth of that. Yet, Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, is welcomed as a European capital. While many want Kosovo integrated into European structures, Moscow remains a political outsider. Or is it because Pristina, in a way, symbolizes European/NATO creation while Moscow is deeply entrenched in history that made it what it is today?

莫斯科與普里什蒂納的對(duì)比
為了進(jìn)一步說明這一點(diǎn)，這里有一個(gè)對(duì)比：比較莫斯科和普里什蒂納的“歐洲性”及其對(duì)“屬于歐洲”的含義。莫斯科居住著超過1300萬人口，而普里什蒂納估計(jì)只有20萬人。莫斯科是一個(gè)擁有數(shù)百年歷史的巨大歐洲及世界強(qiáng)國的首都，而普里什蒂納則是自2008年起才部分被承認(rèn)的國家的首都。這暗示了在歐洲歷史中的文化意義和歷史中心地位。莫斯科占地超過2000平方公里，而普里什蒂納僅為其五分之一。然而，科索沃首都普里什蒂納被視為歐洲首都。許多人希望科索沃融入歐洲結(jié)構(gòu)，而莫斯科卻仍是政治上的局外人。還是因?yàn)槠绽锸驳偌{在某種程度上象征著歐洲/北約的創(chuàng)造，而莫斯科深植于塑造其今日面貌的歷史之中？

Russians within the EU and NATO
The Russians living within the European unx present another reason why excluding Russia from discussions of European security is counterproductive. There are sizable Russian-speaking communities in EU countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The alienation of Russia on the European stage has profound consequences for these communities, many of whom have the undeniable right to see themselves as part of both Russian and European traditions.
Pushing Russia away, the EU is creating a sense of disconnection and disenfranchisement among its Russian-speaking citizens. It also leads to long-term resentment and division within the unx, ultimately undermining European unity. After all, how can Europe claim to be unified if it excludes large swathes of its population from the conversation?
For decades, the idea of European security has been tied to NATO and the US when in reality European security cannot be fully realized without Russia. Moscow, with its vast military capabilities and strategic position, is an essential part of any comprehensive European security frxwork.
The EU and NATO may argue that Russia’s actions in Ukraine have made it an adversary. But this recent development is hardly the cause of such alienation, which started right after the collapse of the Soviet unx. A closer examination suggests that the real challenge lies not in Russia’s presence but in the failure of European leaders to constructively engage.

歐盟和北約中的俄羅斯人
居住在歐盟內(nèi)的俄羅斯人是另一個(gè)原因，說明將俄羅斯排除在歐洲安全討論之外是適得其反的。在愛沙尼亞、拉脫維亞和立陶宛等歐盟國家中，有相當(dāng)大的俄語社區(qū)。將俄羅斯在歐洲舞臺(tái)上孤立，對(duì)這些社區(qū)產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)影響，他們中的許多人無疑有權(quán)認(rèn)為自己既屬于俄羅斯傳統(tǒng)，也屬于歐洲傳統(tǒng)。
將俄羅斯推開，歐盟在其俄語公民中制造了疏離和剝奪感。這還導(dǎo)致了長期的怨恨和歐盟內(nèi)部的分裂，最終破壞了歐洲的團(tuán)結(jié)。畢竟，如果歐洲將大量人口排除在對(duì)話之外，它如何能聲稱自己是統(tǒng)一的？
幾十年來，歐洲安全的概念一直與北約和美國掛鉤，而實(shí)際上，沒有俄羅斯，歐洲安全無法完全實(shí)現(xiàn)。莫斯科憑借其龐大的軍事能力和戰(zhàn)略地位，是任何全面歐洲安全框架的重要組成部分。
歐盟和北約可能認(rèn)為俄羅斯在烏克蘭的行動(dòng)使其成為對(duì)手。但這種近期的發(fā)展并不是這種疏遠(yuǎn)的原因，疏遠(yuǎn)早在蘇聯(lián)解體后就開始了。更仔細(xì)的檢查表明，真正的挑戰(zhàn)不在于俄羅斯的存在，而在于歐洲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人未能建設(shè)性地參與。

The economic perspective
Economically, Europe minus Russia is equally detrimental. Russia, as Europe’s largest neighbor, used to be an important economic partner. The EU and Russia had significant trade relationships, particularly in energy. Russia supplied large portion of Europe’s natural gas and oil requirements, and European companies had important business interests in Russia. The EU accounted for some 37% of Moscow’s trade volume. The Nord Stream gas pipeline was indeed a lifeline for Europe. The situation changed after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, but that is a loss for both the EU and Russia.
Furthermore, Russia’s vast resources and industrial capacity provide important opportunities for collaboration. In an era of global economic competition, Europe cannot afford to disregard a market as significant as Russia. By isolating Russia, Europe risks losing access to critical resources and cutting itself off from potential economic growth.

經(jīng)濟(jì)視角
從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度看，沒有俄羅斯的歐洲同樣是有害的。作為歐洲最大的鄰國，俄羅斯曾是重要的經(jīng)濟(jì)伙伴。歐盟與俄羅斯在能源方面尤其有重要的貿(mào)易關(guān)系。俄羅斯供應(yīng)了歐洲大部分的天然氣和石油需求，歐洲公司在俄羅斯也有重要的商業(yè)利益。歐盟占莫斯科貿(mào)易額的約37%。北溪天然氣管道確實(shí)是歐洲的生命線。2022年烏克蘭沖突升級(jí)后，情況發(fā)生了變化，但這對(duì)歐盟和俄羅斯都是損失。
此外，俄羅斯豐富的資源和工業(yè)能力為合作提供了重要機(jī)會(huì)。在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)競爭時(shí)代，歐洲無法忽視俄羅斯這樣重要的市場。通過孤立俄羅斯，歐洲有失去關(guān)鍵資源和切斷潛在經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

Double standards: The US vs. Russia
The final piece of this puzzle becomes clear when we look at the curious double standard European elites apply to the US and Russia. The US, despite its occasional unilateral actions and sometimes problematic foreign policy, is treated as an ally by the EU. Meanwhile, Russia, with its historical, cultural, economic, and geographical ties to Europe, is often demonized. Such bias is not only illogical but also counterproductive.
Europe should reconsider its stance on Russia. While Russia has certainly made mistakes, as have many other countries, its exclusion from the European conversation is neither fair nor pragmatic. Europe needs to find a way to integrate Russia into the security and economic frxworks of the continent – otherwise, it risks creating an artificial divide that could have long-lasting consequences for both Europe and Russia.
In his 1959 speech, General Charles de Gaulle said, “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals,” before adding, “it is the whole of Europe [including Russia] that will decide the fate of the world.”

雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：美國與俄羅斯
當(dāng)我們審視歐洲精英對(duì)美國和俄羅斯的奇怪雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)，這幅拼圖的最后一塊變得清晰。盡管美國偶爾采取單邊行動(dòng)且外交政策有時(shí)存在問題，歐盟仍將其視為盟友。與此同時(shí)，與歐洲有著歷史、文化、經(jīng)濟(jì)和地理聯(lián)系的俄羅斯卻常常被妖魔化。這種偏見不僅不合邏輯，而且適得其反。
歐洲應(yīng)重新考慮對(duì)俄羅斯的立場。雖然俄羅斯確實(shí)犯過錯(cuò)誤，就像許多其他國家一樣，但將其排除在歐洲對(duì)話之外既不公平也不實(shí)際。歐洲需要找到一種方法，將俄羅斯融入大陸的安全和經(jīng)濟(jì)框架——否則，它有制造人為分歧的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，這可能對(duì)歐洲和俄羅斯產(chǎn)生長期后果。
1959年，夏爾·戴高樂將軍在演講中說：“是的，這是歐洲，從大西洋到烏拉爾”，他還補(bǔ)充道：“是整個(gè)歐洲（包括俄羅斯）將決定世界的命運(yùn)?！?br />