作者/Author(s): Gabrielius Landsbergis 

網站來源/Source: Foreign Policy 

日期/Date: 12/02/2025 

關鍵字/Keywords: 國際政治、中國、歐洲、美國 


摘要：
在早先的研究中，作者曾提出，由於川普政府帶領美國愈加孤立，中國可能試圖削弱跨大西洋關係，讓歐洲脫離美國的軌道。然而，這個「季辛吉式分裂」（Kissinger split）的假設並未發生，促使作者重新評估情勢。 
  • 中國對俄羅斯握有充分槓桿，可透過停止供應俄軍武器製造所需物資、中止採購俄羅斯石油，來限制俄方的戰爭行動。當歐洲呼籲北京協助終止俄烏戰爭時，中國本有機會利用這項槓桿，換取歐洲不干預印太地區的保證，以及更大的歐洲市場與技術權限，讓中國有機會成為歐洲的安全擔保者。 
  • 然而，歐洲忽略了一個事實—中國與俄羅斯是「沒有上限的夥伴關係」，而且中國從俄羅斯在俄烏戰爭中獲得的利益遠大於回應歐洲的請求。中國不但未協助歐洲，反而全力支持孱弱且脆弱的俄羅斯，可能基於以下原因： 
  1. 北京當局意識到切斷歷史悠久的跨大西洋關係實屬不易，但操控實力較弱的普丁則相對容易——畢竟普丁若想維持政權穩定，勢必得避免引發國內政治不滿。 
  2. 雖然中國聲稱自己也有向烏克蘭出售裝備，但向俄羅斯大量出售軍事零件，比向資金幾近耗盡的烏克蘭出售少量民用零件更具利潤與戰略價值。 
  3. 俄羅斯在烏克蘭的軍事行動以及對北約國家的灰色地帶攻擊，讓歐洲各國疲於應對自身安全問題，無暇協助美國在印太地區的布局，這對中國有利。 
  4. 中國透過支持俄羅斯，亦將從俄國經濟與自然資源方面獲得大量好處。隨著俄羅斯對中國的經濟依賴加深，北京將能對莫斯科實施更大的箝制力，甚至在某種程度上把俄羅斯變成附庸國。 
  5. 中國可能要求莫斯科在戰後歸還外東北地區，因中國主張該地與南海、台灣一樣，同屬中國領土。
  • 從整體戰略評估來看，中國支持莫斯科將在政治與經濟層面獲益更多。普丁也能藉由中國的協助延長戰爭、維持政權正當性。 
  • 歐洲（甚至美國）將因跨大西洋關係退縮而損失慘重。若無歐洲協助，美國無法單獨對抗中國，更可能在印太地區與俄羅斯正面交鋒。而歐洲則將成為最大輸家：被美國邊緣化、被中國忽視，同時遭受俄羅斯攻擊。美中雙方務必認清中俄軸心對全球安全帶來的深遠影響。
 
Summary: 
In an earlier work, the author suggested that China may try fracture trans-Atlantic relations to pull Europe away from the US’s orbit amid increased isolation from the Trump administration. However, the proposition – Kissinger split – did not happen, causing the author to reevaluate the situation. 
  • China had plenty of leverage over Moscow. It could restrict Russia’s war efforts by stopping the supplies of weapons manufacturing for Russia’s war effort and halting purchases of Russian oil. When Europe appealed to Beijing to help stop the Russo-Ukraine War, China had the opportunity of using its leverage in exchange for assurances of non-interference in the Indo-Pacific and greater access in the European markets and technology. This bargain would ultimately turn China into a security guarantor of Europe. 
  • However, Europe had neglected the fact that China and Russia are “partners without limit” and that China had more to gain from Russia’s war in Ukraine than addressing Europe’s plea. Instead of helping Europe, China went all-in in supporting the weak and vulnerable Russia, possibly for the following reasons: 
  1. Beijing recognized the difficulty in severing the long-standing trans-Atlantic relations, while it is easier to manipulate the weaker Putin as he will struggle to maintain his regime stability without causing domestic political dissatisfaction. 
  2. While China argued that it also sells equipment to Ukraine too, selling military parts at a large quantity to Russia is more profitable and strategic than selling small number of civilian components to the almost-fund-depleted Ukraine. 
  3. Russia’s military operation in Ukraine and gray-zone attacks in NATO countries would keep Europe countries occupied with their security and away from helping the US in the Indo-Pacific, benefiting China.  
  4. China would also obtain a large stake in Russia’s economy, especially its natural resources by supporting it. Furthermore, as Russia increases its economic dependence on China, it would allow Beijing a larger control over Moscow or even turning Russia into its vassal state. 
  5. China may also ask Moscow to return Outer Manchuria after the war ends as it believes it owns the territory, like South China Sea and Taiwan. 
  • Looking into the overall strategic assessment, China would have more to gain politically and economically by supporting Moscow. Putin could also extend his war and keep his regime legitimacy through China’s assistance. 
  • Europe, and to a lesser extent, the US, would have little to gain from the retreat of the trans-Atlantic relations. The US could not face China alone without Europe and it may face Russia in the Indo-Pacific too. Europe would be the greatest loser after being sidelined by the US, ignored by China, and under attack from Russia. It is imperative for the US and China to recognize the global security implications of the Sino-Russian axis. 
 
回上層