本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
嘿，大家好。
Hey, everybody.
我是弗里德伯格。
Friedberg here.
你们即将听到的是我们在9月10日于洛杉矶举办的‘全员参与峰会’中的小组讨论。
What you're about to hear is a panel discussion from our All In Summit recorded in LA on September 10.
在未来一个月里，我们每周会发布其中一些最精彩的对话。
We're gonna publish some of the best conversations once a week over the next month.
如果你想观看所有演讲，请订阅我们的YouTube频道：youtube.com/@allin，并在X平台关注我们：theallinpod。
If you wanna see all the talks, subscribe to our YouTube channel at youtube.com/@allin and follow us on x at theallinpod.
世界上最具影响力且最具争议的思想家之一。
One of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world.
他被誉为全球经济发展领域的顶尖专家之一。
He is known as one of the world's leading experts on economic development.
世界上最著名的政治学家之一
One of the most famous political scientists in
历史。
history.
我们讨论的是道德和政治原则。
We're about moral and political principles here.
我建议，这四场战争都可以迅速结束。
I would suggest that all four wars could be ended quickly.
大国政治如今重新成为议题。
Great power politics is now back on the table.
如果我们真能代表世界共同体，就必须落实我们所说的话。
If we are anything as a world community, we have to implement what we've said.
我对这个小组讨论感到兴奋。
I'm excited for this panel.
我们将讨论外交政策。
We're going to talk about foreign policy.
我认为，我们有两位最有趣、最前沿、最著名的外交政策思想家：芝加哥大学的约翰·米尔斯海默教授和哥伦比亚大学的杰弗里·萨克斯教授。
We have, I think, two of the most interesting, imminent, renowned thinkers about foreign policy, professor John Mearsheimer from University of Chicago and professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia.
很高兴你们今天能来。
So great to have you guys here today.
世界很大，很多事情正在发生，我们直接进入正题吧。
It's a big world and there's a lot of things happening, so let's just jump into it.
过去一周的大新闻是迪克·切尼支持卡玛拉·哈里斯竞选总统。
The big news over the past week was that Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala Harris for president.
对于那些以党派政治视角看世界的人来说，这可能令人惊讶，但我想你们对此并不觉得意外。
I think for people who see the world in partisan political terms, this might have been surprising, but I don't think that you guys were that surprised by that.
你们觉得这背后有什么深层逻辑吗？
Do you see an underlying logic to this?
杰夫，我先请你谈谈吧？
Jeff, why don't I start with you?
我觉得这很明显。
I think it's obvious.
本质上只有一个‘深层政府’政党，那就是切尼、哈里斯、拜登、维多利亚·纽兰——我目前在哥伦比亚大学的同事——所属的政党。
There's basically one Deep State Party and that is the party of Cheney, Harris, Biden, Victoria Newland, my colleague at Columbia University now.
纽兰可以说是这一切的代表人物，因为她过去三十年来一直在每一届政府中任职。
Newland is kind of the face of all of this because she has been in every administration for the last thirty years.
她在克林顿政府时期，破坏了我们二十世纪九十年代对俄罗斯的政策。
She was in the Clinton administration wrecking our policies towards Russia in the nineteen nineties.
在小布什政府时期，她与切尼一起，破坏了我们对北约东扩的政策。
She was, in the Bush administration junior, with Cheney, wrecking our policies towards NATO enlargement.
随后在奥巴马政府时期，她先是担任希拉里的发言人，然后在2014年2月策动了乌克兰政变。
She was in, then the Obama administration as Hillary's spokesperson first, and then making a coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
这不是一个明智的举动。
Not a great move.
引发了战争。
Started a war.
之后她又成为拜登政府的副国务卿。
Then she was, Biden's undersecretary of state.
这说明两党都如此。
Now that's both parties.
这是一场巨大的混乱，而她一直是切尼的顾问。
It's a a colossal mess, and she's been Cheney's adviser.
她一直是拜登的顾问。
She's been Biden's adviser.
她确实说得通。
She she and makes perfect sense.
这就是现实。
This is the reality.
我们正在试图弄清楚是否还有另一个政党。
We're trying to find out if there's another party.
这是个关键问题。
That's the big question.
约翰，你对此有什么看法？
John, what's what's your thought on that?
你认为共和党和民主党之间有什么区别吗？
Do you see any difference between republicans and democrats?
不。
No.
我喜欢把共和党和民主党称为 Tweedledee 和 Tweedledum。
I like to refer to the republicans and the democrats as tweedledee and tweedledub.
两者几乎没有区别。
There's hardly any difference.
事实上，我认为唯一的例外是，前总统特朗普在2017年上台后，决心反击深层政府，并在外交政策上成为一种不同的领导者。
I actually think the one exception is that former president Trump, when he became president in 2017, was bent on beating back the Deep State and becoming a different kind of leader on the foreign policy front.
但他基本上失败了，并誓言如果这次再次当选，情况会不同，他会反击深层政府。
But, he basically failed and he has vowed that if he gets elected this time, it will be different and he will beat back the Deep State.
他会推行一种与如今共和党和民主党所奉行的截然不同的外交政策。
He will pursue a foreign policy that's fundamentally different than Republicans and Democrats have pursued up to now.
摆在桌面上的大问题是，你是否认为特朗普能够战胜深层政府和这两个既得利益政党。
And, the big question on the table is whether or not you think Trump can beat the Deep State and these two established parties.
我会押注特朗普不会成功。
And I'd bet against Trump.
约翰和杰夫，但我们先从约翰开始。
John and Jeff, but let's start with John.
你能具体解释一下，当人们说‘深层政府’时，指的是什么吗？
Can you actually define for understand when people say deep state what it is.
我几乎觉得这个词很滑稽。
I almost view the term comically.
我们群里有个朋友，我们叫他‘深层政府’，到底谁才是真正的‘深层政府’？
We have one of our friends in our group chat who we call Deep State, who's Deep, deep state?
他才是真正身在深层政府的人。
He's really in the deep state.
但我们这么说只是开玩笑。
But we say it as a joke.
但对于不太了解的人而言，这个词到底是什么意思？
But for maybe the uninitiated, what does it actually mean?
他们的动机是什么？
What are their incentives?
他们是谁？
Who are they?
杰夫，你来开始说吧？
Jeff, maybe you want to start?
或者约翰，你来开始？
Or John, you want to start?
是的。
Yeah.
我来简单说几句。
I'll say a few words about it.
当我们谈论深层政府时，实际上指的是行政国家。
When we talk about the deep state, we're talking really about the administrative state.
非常重要的是要理解，从十九世纪末到二十世纪初，随着美国经济的发展，我们必须建立一个强大的中央国家——这一点在所有西方国家都成立，以管理国家事务。
It's very important to understand that starting in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century, given developments in the American economy, it was imperative that we develop, and this was true of all Western countries, a very powerful central state that could run the country.
随着时间推移，这个国家的权力不断扩张。
And over time that state has grown in power.
自二战以来，正如你们所知，美国一直深度介入全球各个角落，到处发动战争。
And since World War II, The United States, as you all know, has been involved in every nook and cranny of the world fighting wars here, there, and everywhere.
为了做到这一点，你需要一个非常强大的行政机构来协助管理外交政策。
And to do that, you need a very powerful administrative state that can help manage that foreign policy.
但在这个过程中，会出现大量高级、中级和低级官僚，他们长期占据五角大楼、国务院、情报机构等各个职位，逐渐形成了对特定外交政策的既得利益，而他们偏好的政策正是民主党和共和党所推动的那一种。
But in the process, what happens is you get all of these high level bureaucrats, middle level and low level bureaucrats, who become established in positions in the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence community, you name it, and they end up having a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy, and the particular foreign policy that they like to pursue is the one that the Democrats and the Republicans are pushing.
这就是为什么我们用‘ Tweedledee 和 Tweedledum’来形容两大政党，你也可以把‘深层政府’视为与这两者立场一致的第三方。
And that's why we talk about Tweedledee and Tweedledum with regard to the two parties, you could throw in the Deep State as being on the same page as those other two institutions.
是的。
Yeah.
2017年，《费加罗报》对普京有一段非常有趣的采访，他说：‘我已经与三位总统打过交道了。’
There there's a very interesting interview of Putin in Figaro in 2017 and he says, I've dealt with three presidents now.
他们上任时带着一些想法，甚至抱有理想，但随后那些穿着深色西装、打着蓝色领带的人就会出现，他说：‘我戴红领带，但他们戴蓝领带。’
They come into office with some ideas even, but then the men in the dark suits and the blue ties, and then he says, I I wear red ties, but they wear blue ties.
他们进来后，向总统解释世界究竟是怎样的，于是那些原本的想法就消失了。
They come in and explain the way the world really is, and there go the ideas.
我认为这就是普京的经历。
And I think that's Putin's experience.
这也是我们的经历。
That's our experience.
这是我的经历，即存在一种根深蒂固的外交政策。
That's my experience, which is that there's a deeply entrained foreign policy.
在我看来，这种政策已经存在了几十年，但严格来说，它的某种变体自1992年以来就一直存在。
It has been in place in my interpretation for many decades, but arguably a variant of it has been in place since 1992.
我早期有幸亲历了一些情况，因为我曾是戈尔巴乔夫和叶利钦的顾问。
I got to watch some of it early on because I was an adviser to Gorbachev and I was an adviser to Yeltsin.
因此，我看到了这种趋势的早期迹象，尽管当时我并未完全理解，只是事后才恍然大悟。
And so I saw early makings of this, though I didn't fully understand it except in retrospect.
但这一政策在过去三十年里基本保持一致，无论是老布什、克林顿、小布什、奥巴马，还是特朗普，都没什么区别。
But that policy has been mostly in place pretty consistently for thirty years, it didn't really matter whether it was Bush senior, whether it was Clinton, whether it was Bush junior, whether it was Obama, whether it was Trump.
毕竟，特朗普都聘用了谁？
After all, who did Trump hire?
他聘用了约翰·博尔顿。
He hired John Bolton.
嗯，那是根深蒂固的官僚体系。
Well, the pretty deep state.
他们告诉你，他解释了，事情就这样结束了。
That was the end of they told you know, he explained.
事情就是这么回事。
This is the way it is.
顺便说一下，博尔顿在他的回忆录中也提到，当特朗普不同意时，我们想出了各种办法来哄骗他。
And by the way, Bolton explained also in his memoirs, when when Trump didn't agree, we figured out ways to trick him, basically.
那么，他们的动机是什么？
So And what what are their incentives?
是战争吗？
Is it war?
是自我牟利吗？
Is it self enrichment?
是权力吗？
Is it power?
是三者都有吗？
Is it all three?
是其中一些，是的。
Is it some yeah.
是单纯的哲学上的根深蒂固，还是仅仅因为一种惯性问题——一旦政策启动，就很难改变，而整个系统有上万人在推动它？
Is it is it just is there a philosophical entrenchment or is it just this inertial issue that, like, once a policy begins, it's hard to change and the system's just working with 10,000 people working towards it.
你知道，如果我有幸坐在世界上最伟大的政治哲学家旁边——而我确实坐到了——他会给你一个很好的答案，那就是正确的答案：要理解美国的外交政策，就是要最大化权力。
You know, if I were lucky to sit next to the world's greatest political philosopher, which I am, he'd give you a good answer, which is that the right answer, which is if you want to interpret American foreign policy, is to maximize power.
他给出了约翰对此的解释。
And he gives a John gives an explanation of that.
我们之间有些分歧，但我认为这很好地描述了美国的外交政策，即本质上是在追求全球权力，成为全球霸主。
We have some differences, but I think it's a very good description of American foreign policy, which is that it's trying to maximize global power essentially to be global hegemon.
我认为这可能会让我们所有人都丧命。
I think it could get us all killed.
这在我看来有点脱离现实。
This is because it's a little bit delusional in my mind.
但不是他对他们观点的解读，而是他们持有这种观点这件事让我觉得有点奇怪。
But not not the not his interpretation of their idea, but the fact that they hold that idea is a little weird to me.
但无论如何，这就是他们的观点。
But in any event, that's the idea.
每当我看到一个决策时，我是个经济学家，所以我看待安全决策的方式不同。
And every time a decision comes inside that I've seen, I'm an economist, so I don't see the security decisions the same way.
但我所见过的每一个决策，在过去三十年里，总是朝着同一个方向倾斜，那就是将权力作为核心目标。
But every decision that I've seen always leans in the same direction for the last thirty years, which is power as the central objective.
所以克林顿当时面临内阁内部的真正辩论：是否应该扩大北约。
So Clinton faced an internal cabinet, really, debate, should NATO be enlarged.
这是不是一种后冷战现象，
Is this a this is a post cold war phenomenon that
嗯，我会让约翰来回答这个问题。
It's well, I'll I'll let John take that.
两个非常简短的观点。
Two two very quick points.
首先，我相信支持这一外交政策的人是真心相信它的。
First of all, I do believe that the people who are in favor of this foreign policy do believe in it.
这并不是愤世嫉俗。
It's not cynical.
他们真的相信我们正在做正确的事。
They really believe that we're doing the right
我见过他们。
I've met them.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
我要向你提出的第二点，这在某种程度上补充了杰夫的说法。
The second point I would make to you, and this sort of adds on to what Jeff said.
杰夫说，权力与此有很大关系，作为一名现实主义者，我当然认同这一点。
Jeff said power has a lot to do with this, and as a good realist, I of course believe that.
但同样重要的是要理解，美国本质上是一个自由主义国家，我们相信自己有权利、有责任，也有能力在全球范围内重塑世界，使之符合美国的形象。
But it's also very important to understand that The United States is a fundamentally liberal country, and we believe that we have a right, we have a responsibility, and we have the power to run around the world and remake the world in America's image.
外交政策圈、共和党和民主党中的大多数人，都相信这一点。
Most people in the foreign policy establishment, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, they believe that.
自冷战结束以来，这在很大程度上推动了我们的外交政策。
And that is what has motivated our foreign policy in large part since the Cold War ended.
因为请记住，当冷战结束时，我们不再有其他强大的对手了。
Because remember, when the Cold War ends, we have no rival great power left.
那么，我们该如何运用我们拥有的这些权力呢？
So what are we gonna do with all this power that we have?
我们决定走出去，按照自己的形象重塑世界。
What we decide to do is go out and remake the world in our own image.
但这确实是一种价值观的视角。
So that's a that's a values point of view though.
对吧？
Right?
他们持有某些价值观，许多人确实珍视这些价值观，自由主义和民主最终——我相信我听过这种说法——能够减少全球冲突，自二战以来，我们从未见过两个民主国家之间发生战争，我们希望看到自由主义在全球范围内得到推广，这正是我们对世界和平负有的责任。
That that there are values that they hold dear, that that many do hold dear, that liberalism, democracy does ultimately, I believe I've heard this, reduce conflict worldwide, that there's an importance that we've never seen two democratic nations since World War two go to war, and that there's a reason why we want to see liberalism kind of freed throughout the world and it's our responsibility for world for global peace to make that a mandate.
让我插一句
Let me step in for
一会儿。
one moment.
好的。
Just Okay.
当然。
Sure.
很快说一下。
Very quickly.
顺便问一下，我该怎么称呼它？
And by the way, I'm I'm I'm I'm what do call it?
你如何汲取他人的精神与声音。
Where you pull the spirits of the the voice of others.
但我只是想
But I'm I'm just trying to
通灵。
Channeling.
通灵。
Channeling.
这就是那个词。
That's the word.
我想说得非常清楚。
I wanna be very clear.
我永远感激自己出生在一个自由民主国家，我热爱自由主义。
I am forever thankful that I was born in a liberal democracy, and I love liberalism.
但这里的问题是，你认为我们能否在全球范围内强加自由民主于其他国家，甚至在某些情况下强迫他们接受，用枪口逼迫他们？
But the question here is, do you think that we can run around the world imposing liberal democracy on other countries, and in some cases shoving it down their throat, doing it at the end of a rifle barrel.
我的观点是，这几乎是不可能做到的。
And my argument is that's almost impossible to do.
它几乎总是适得其反。
It almost always backfires.
想想伊拉克、阿富汗，等等。
Think Iraq, Afghanistan, so forth and so on.
其次，你会开始侵蚀美国的自由主义，因为你建立了一个深层政府。
And secondly, you begin to erode liberalism in The United States because you build a deep state.
对吧？
Right?
你想明白，这里很多关于压制言论自由等的抱怨，都与我们这种雄心勃勃的外交政策有关。
And you wanna understand that a lot of the complaints here about cracking down on freedom of speech and so forth and so on are related to the fact that we have this ambitious foreign policy.
这两者以非常重要的方式紧密相连。
Those two things go together in very important ways.
多么讽刺啊。
What an irony.
让我稍微不同意一下，因为我们实际上在行为上是一致的，我从你那里学到了大部分内容，那就是追求权力。
Let me let me disagree just a bit because we agree actually on the behavior and I've learned, I'd say most of that from you, that it's power seeking.
真的，约翰，在我海外四十年的工作中，我认为美国政府根本不在乎这些地方。
Truly, John, in my work forty years overseas, I don't think the US government gives a damn about these other places.
他们根本不关心那是民主国家还是独裁政权。
I don't think they really care if it's a liberal democracy, if it's a dictatorship.
他们想要的是过境权，想要军事基地。
They want the right of ways, they want military bases.
他们希望该国支持美国。
They want the state to be in support of The United States.
他们想要北约扩张。
They want NATO enlargement.
我知道你写过一些东西，也有些人相信国家建设。
I don't I know you've you've written, and there are some who believe in state building.
天啊，如果他们真这么想，那也太无能了，简直难以置信。
God, if they do, they are so incompetent, it's unbelievable.
萨克斯教授。
Professor Sachs.
我给你举个例子，就一个例子。
I'll give you an example if I Just one example.
我认识一位阿富汗裔经济学家，他是过去三十年里美国学术界为数不多的几位博士之一。
I'm I'm a friend with one of the only PhD Afghani economists, senior person in The US on academia over the last thirty years.
如果你认为美国国务院真有兴趣搞国家建设，那他们至少该在某一天、某一个时刻问问他对阿富汗的看法。
You would think that the State Department, if they were interested in state building, would ask him one day, one moment something about Afghanistan.
从来没有，从来没有。
Never Never
连一个问题都没问过。
Not even one question.
从未发生过。
Never happened.
他问我：你能帮我安排一次与国务院的会面吗？
He asked me, can you get me a meeting with the State Department?
他们完全不感兴趣。
They were completely uninterested.
这关乎权力。
This is this is about power.
你太理想主义了，约翰。
You're too idealistic, John.
他们不在乎其他地方。
They don't care about the other places.
他们或许觉得我们应当想怎样就怎样，自由自在，但自由——我亲眼见过政变、推翻、总统被带走，包括民主党的总统。
They may feel we should be whatever we want, free and so forth, but freedom, I've been I've seen my with my own eyes, the coups, the overthrows, the presidents, Democratic presidents led away.
他们根本不在乎。
They don't care at all.
这就是华盛顿。
This is Washington.
做个现实主义者吧。
Be a realist.
得了吧。
Come on.
米尔斯海默教授，当我们谈论权力时，世界上还有其他人在努力积累权力。
Professor Mearsheimer, when we talk about power, there are other people in the world who are trying to accumulate power.
我们现在生活在一个多极世界，他们中的一些人有着非常邪恶或不良的意图，而且他们没有民主。
We live in a multipolar world right now, and they have, in some cases, very nefarious or bad intent, and they do not have democracy.
所以，告诉阿富汗的人们，你们需要逐步演变成像我们这里这样的完美民主国家，这是一回事。
So it's one thing to, you know, tell people in Afghanistan, you need to evolve, you know, to be a perfect democracy like the one we have here.
我认为我们都同意，这是不现实、疯狂且不切实际的。
I think we all agree that's unrealistic and insane and not practical.
但世界各国的民主国家联合起来阻止独裁者入侵其他民主国家呢？
But what about the free countries of the world uniting together to stop dictators from invading other free countries?
这高尚吗？
Is that noble?
这是权力的正当运用吗？这是美国应该走向的良好框架吗？
Is that a good use of power and a good framework for America to evolve to?
不。
No.
我不这么认为。
I don't think so.
我认为美国应该关注自身的国家利益。
I think that what The United States should do is worry about its own national interest.
在某些情况下，这可能会涉及我们与独裁者结盟。
In some cases, that's gonna involve aligning ourselves with a dictator.
如果我们再次陷入第二次世界大战，日期是1941年12月8日，你肯定会支持与约瑟夫·斯大林和苏联结盟，而不是与阿道夫·希特勒结盟，共同对抗阿道夫·希特勒和纳粹德国。
If we're fighting World War two all over again, it's 12/08/1941, You surely would be in favor of allying with Adolf not with Adolf Hitler, with Joseph Stalin and The Soviet Union against Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
有时候，你不得不做出这样的妥协。
Sometimes you have to make those kind of compromises.
正如我之前所说，我热爱自由民主。
As I said before, I love liberal democracy.
我并不反对与自由民主国家结盟。
I have no problem aligned with liberal democracy.
但当你开始以你这样的方式思考时，最终会萌生一种在全球范围内进行社会工程的冲动。
But when you begin to think in the terms that you're thinking, you end up with an impulse to do social engineering around the world.
嗯哼。
Mhmm.
这会给你带来各种各样的问题。
And that gets you in all sorts of problems.
我提出的建议是，当独裁政权入侵其他国家时，我们就采取行动。
Well, what I'm proposing is when dictatorships invade other countries, then we take action.
这要看情况。
It depends.
也许还要保护它们。
And maybe def defend them.
这要看情况。
It depends.
是的。
Yeah.
当然。
Of course.
我的意思是，当俄罗斯入侵乌克兰时，你基本上是在说，你希望为乌克兰对俄罗斯开战。
I mean, when Russia invades Ukraine, basically, what you're saying is you wanna go to war on behalf of Ukraine against Russia.
你支持这一点吗？
Are you in favor of that?
不。
No.
我认为我们显然应该先 exhausting 外交手段。
I would say diplomacy would obviously be what we'd want to exhaust.
但如果他们继续入侵其他自由国家，我认为世界上自由国家应该联合起来说：两个独裁者，我们不会允许这种情况发生。
But if they do roll into other free countries, I think there's an argument for the free countries of the world to get together and say, two dictators, we're not gonna allow this.
我可以插一句吗？
Could I come in here?
我可以澄清几件事吗？
Could I clarify a few things?
是的。
Yeah.
听好了，首先，我们几乎每次干预，都是因为我们把这看作是美国的权力问题。
Look, first of all, almost all the time that we intervene, it's because we view this as a power situation for The US.
所以无论是乌克兰、叙利亚、利比亚还是其他地方，即使我们将其定义为捍卫某种东西，相信我，这根本不是关于捍卫，而是关于美国权力和美国利益的感知，其目标是实现美国的全球霸权。
So whether it's Ukraine or Syria or Libya or other places, even if we define it as defending something, believe me, it's not about defending something, it's about a perception of US power and US interest, and it's in objectives of US global hegemony.
如果我们稍微深入分析一下乌克兰冲突，这根本不是关于普京入侵乌克兰的问题。
And if we analyze the Ukraine conflict just even a little bit below the surface, this is not a conflict about Putin invading Ukraine.
这实际上是完全不同的事情，涉及美国在前苏联地区的权力投射。
This is something a lot different that has to do with American power projection into the former Soviet Union.
所以这是完全不同的。
So it's completely different.
其次，如果我们决定自己当警察——而我们确实这么做了——你们无法想象我们为自己的行为找的借口有多么虚伪和荒谬。
Second, if we decide we're the police, which we do, you can't imagine how cynical bullshit we use to justify our actions.
我们用虚伪的借口，声称要保卫班加西人民，从而对利比亚狂轰滥炸，杀死穆阿迈尔·卡扎菲。
We used the cynical bullshit that we're defending the people of Benghazi to bomb the hell out of Libya to kill Muammar Gaddafi.
我们为什么要这么做？
Why did we do that?
嗯，我对这个地区还算了解，我可以告诉你，也许是因为萨科齐不喜欢卡扎菲。
Well, I'm kind of an expert on that region and I can tell you maybe because Sarkozy didn't like Gaddafi.
除了希拉里喜欢任何她能插手的轰炸之外，没有更深层的原因。
There's no much deeper reason except Hillary liked every bombing she could get her hands on.
而奥巴马也多少被说服了。
And Obama was kind of convinced.
我的国务卿说支持行动，那我们为什么不跟着北约的远征行动走呢？
My secretary of state says go with it, so why don't we go with the NATO expedition?
这跟利比亚根本没关系。
It had nothing to do with Libya.
它引发了十五年的混乱，欺骗了联合国安理会，因为和我们做的其他所有事情一样，这都是基于虚假的借口。
It it unleashed fifteen years of chaos, cheated the UN Security Council because like everything else we've done, it was on false pretenses.
我们在试图推翻叙利亚时也做了同样的事。
We did the same with trying to overthrow Syria.
我们也在2014年2月策划推翻乌克兰的亚努科维奇。
We did the same with conspiring to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014.
所以这个论点的问题在于，我们并不是好人。
So the problem with this argument is we're not nice guys.
我们并不是想拯救世界。
We're not trying to save the world.
我们并不是想建立民主国家。
We're not trying to make democracies.
顺便说一句，我们有一个委员会，成员都是你能想到的知名人士，但他们都是新保守主义狂热分子，尽管确实很有名。
We had a committee, by the way, of all the luminaries you could mention, but they're the neocon crazies, but they're luminaries.
车臣人民委员会。
The Committee for the People of Chechnya.
你在开玩笑吗？
Are you kidding?
你以为他们连车臣在哪里都不知道，或者根本不在乎车臣吗？
Do you think they even knew where Chechnya is or cared about Chechnya?
但这正是一个打击俄罗斯、削弱俄罗斯、支持俄罗斯境内圣战运动的机会。
But it was an opportunity to get at Russia, to weaken Russia, to support a jihadist movement inside Russia.
这样做是一场游戏。
To do this is a game.
但这是约翰比世界上任何人都描述得更好的一场游戏。
But it's the game that John has described better than anyone in the world.
这是一场权力的游戏。
It's a game of power.
我们并不是在捍卫真正重要的东西。
It's not that we're defending real things.
如果你真想捍卫重要的事物，就去联合国安理会，说服其他国家，因为其他国家并不疯狂，也不希望世界陷入混乱。
If you want to defend real things, go to the UN Security Council and convince others because the other countries are not crazy, and they don't want mayhem in the world.
但我们玩的是游戏。
But we play games.
所以他们说，那是一场游戏，伊拉克，我们在入侵之前就知道那明显是一场游戏。
So they say, that's a game, Iraq, which was obviously a game before we went in.
很明显，那天科林·鲍威尔只要一开口就必然在撒谎。
It was a obviously, Colin Powell could not move his lips without lying that day.
显而易见。
Obviously.
于是他们说，不行。
And so they said, no.
但如果我们真正坦诚地对待我们的利益，那就应该去联合国安理会，那样就不仅仅是我们的责任了。
But if we're real about our interests, then you go to the UN Security Council, and then it's not just on us.
那实际上就成了一个集体安全问题。
It's actually then a collective security issue.
米尔斯海默教授，如果我们采纳杰弗里的观点，认为我们施加权力是为了声誉，事实上是为了削弱独裁政权——如果我总结得没错的话，这难道不是一个削弱全球独裁者的好策略吗？他们可能正想入侵其他国家。
Professor Mearsheimer, if we were to take Jeffrey's position here that we are exerting power for the sake of, you know, our reputation and, in fact, to weaken dictatorships, if I'm if I'm summarizing correctly here, is that not a good strategy to weaken dictators around the world who might like to invade other countries?
有没有一种说法，认为在我们这一代人的时间里，民主和人们自由生活的状况已经下滑，而这种做法正是为了应对这种情况？
Is there is there a framing in which you could see that being for, you know, a world where democracy and people living freely has gone down in our lifetimes?
这难道不崇高吗？
Is that not noble?
难道没有人能为此提出某种正当理由吗？
Is there not a justification somebody could make for?
我不是说我自己认同这个观点，我只是想站在对方的角度来思考一下。
I'm not saying I have that, but I'm just trying to steal me on the other side of this.
削弱独裁者和专制者是一个好策略吗？
Is weakening dictators and despots a good strategy?
这要看情况。
It depends.
那我们来谈谈我们目前面临的两个例子。
Well, let's talk about the the two that we have.
你知道的，习近平，我想你最终会谈到他，还有乌克兰和普京。
You know, Xi Jinping, I think you wanted to get to eventually, and then Ukraine and and Putin.
这些人值得我们去遏制甚至削弱吗？
Are these people worth trying to, you know, contain or even weaken?
至于中国，我完全支持遏制中国。
Well, in terms of China, I'm fully in favor of containing China.
好的。
Okay.
所以是遏制策略。
So containment check.
是的。
Yeah.
这就是遏制。
It's containment.
我对政权更迭不感兴趣。
I'm not interested in regime change.
我不打算试图把中国变成一个民主国家。
I'm not interested in trying to turn China into a democracy.
不会发生的。
Not gonna happen.
是的。
Yeah.
不会发生。
Not gonna happen.
我们确实试过了，我认为推行对华接触政策简直是愚蠢的。
We tried it, actually, and I thought it was foolish to even pursue a policy of engagement toward China.
关于俄罗斯，我不认为俄罗斯是对美国的重大威胁，事实上，我认为美国应该与普京保持良好关系。
With regard to Russia, I don't think Russia is a serious threat to The United States, and indeed, I think The United States should have good relations with Putin.
把普京逼向中国怀抱的政策简直是极其愚蠢的。
It's a remarkably foolish policy to push him into the arms of the Chinese.
这个体系中有三个大国：美国、中国和俄罗斯。
There are three great powers in the system, The United States, China, and Russia.
中国是美国的纯粹竞争对手。
China is a pure competitor to The United States.
它是对美国最严重的威胁。
It's the most serious threat to The United States.
俄罗斯是这三个大国中最弱的，它对我们构不成重大威胁。
Russia is the weakest of those three great powers, and it's not a serious threat to us.
如果你在玩平衡的外交政策，并且作为美国，你希望遏制中国，那你希望俄罗斯站在你这一边。
If you are playing balanced apparel politics and you're interested, as The United States, in containing China, you want Russia on your side of the ledger.
但我们实际上所做的，是把俄罗斯推到了中国怀里。
But what we have done, in effect, is we have pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese.
这是一个极其愚蠢的政策。
This is a remarkably foolish policy.
而且，由于深陷乌克兰战争，如今又陷入中东，我们很难将重心转向亚洲以应对中国——这是我们面临的最主要威胁。
And furthermore, by getting bogged down in Ukraine and now bogged down in The Middle East, it's become very difficult for us to pivot to Asia to deal with China, which is the principal threat that we face.
我觉得我觉得大卫
I think I think David
我能说一下吗？三分之二是对的。
Could I just say two thirds right.
完美。
Perfect.
所以你给他打了B或B+？
So you gave him a b or b plus?
减分。
A minus.
我只是想补充一点，那就是中国也不是威胁。
I just wanted to add a footnote which is that China is also not a threat.
它根本就不是威胁。
It's just not a threat.
我的意思是，它
I mean it
我们会说到的。
we're going get to it.
我们来看看。
Let's look that.
它是一个市场。
Is a market.
它有美食、丰富的文化、出色的人们，以及一个比我们文明悠久十倍的文明。
It's got great food, great culture, wonderful people, a civilization 10 times older than ours.
这并不是威胁。
It's not a threat.
作为一名经济学家，您能否从经济角度谈谈与中国发生冷战或热战的影响，考虑到两国的贸易关系？
Well, as an economist, can you talk about the impact of a cold or hot conflict with China from an economic perspective given the trade relations?
是的。
Yeah.
这首先会毁掉加利福尼亚。
It would wreck California for one thing.
它会彻底摧毁你们正在建立的经济。
It would destroy the economy that you guys are making completely.
这个经济可能是全世界最受益于中国崛起的。
This economy has been the biggest beneficiary of China's rise probably in the whole world.
所以这太疯狂了。
So it's crazy.
也许如果你真的担心俄亥俄州的工人是否能在某条装配线上保住工作，那你才会反华。
Maybe if you're worried if you're really worried about whether a worker in Ohio has a particular job on a particular assembly line, then you can be anti China.
如果你担心科技行业、加州、和平与未来，你就应该支持中国。
If you're worried about the tech industry, about California, about peace and the future, you should be pro China.
就这样。
That's all.
为什么无论在政党立场上，还是在你所能想到的任何其他维度上，人们都普遍默认我们已经与中国处于冲突状态？
Why has it become so universal to assume that we are already in a state of conflict with China on not just party lines, but, like, almost any spectrum you could kind of like consider.
约翰说得完全正确，他在2001年对这一点的预测比世界上任何人都更准确。
John said it exactly right and he predicted it better than anyone in the whole world in 2001.
他说，当中国变得强大时，我们就会与之发生冲突，因为这是约翰的理论。
He said, when China becomes large, we're going to have conflict because that's John's theory.
这准确地描述了美国外交政策的本质——我们崇尚实力。
And it's right as a description of American foreign policy that we are for power.
他们很强大。
They are big.
因此，他们就是敌人。
Therefore, they're an enemy.
他们是阻碍我们追求
They're an enemy of our aspiration to
全球保护的敌人。
global protectment.
两座被困的城市？
Two cities trapped?
城市，让我们让约翰
Cities Let's let John
插一句。
jump in here.
你希望我谈谈这个吗？可以吗？
Do you want you want me to is it okay if I talk about this?
好的。
Yeah.
好的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，我觉得有趣的是，你和杰夫在乌克兰问题上得出了相似的结论，但在对中国的问题上看法不同。
I mean, I think I think that what's interesting, I mean, you and Jeff, I think, arrive at similar conclusions about Ukraine, but different ones on China.
对吧？
Right?
因为杰夫是个经济学家，我认为他从某种根本性的积极角度看待世界，基于贸易和经济的潜力。
Because Jeff is an economist and I think sees the world in fundamentally positive some ways based on the potential for trade, economics basically.
而你则更倾向于把世界看作一场基于权力平衡的零和博弈。
Whereas you see the world as more of a zero sum game based on the balance of power.
你能不能解释一下这种差异？
Why don't you just explain that difference?
好的。
Okay.
正如戴维所说，非常重要的是要强调，杰夫和我在许多问题上都持相同观点，包括乌克兰和以色列-巴勒斯坦问题，但正如他刚才明确指出的，我们在对中国问题上存在根本分歧。
It is very important to emphasize, as David was saying, that Jeff and I agree on all sorts of issues, including Ukraine and Israel Palestine, but we disagree fundamentally, as he just made clear on China.
让我向你们解释一下，为什么我认为情况如此，然后杰夫可以告诉你们，为什么他认为我错了。
And let me explain to you why I think that's the case, and then Jeff can tell you why he thinks I'm wrong.
这关乎安全，你是更重视安全或生存，还是更重视繁荣。
It has to do with security, whether you privilege security or survival or whether you privilege prosperity.
经济学家，以及我猜想在座的大多数人都非常关心如何最大化繁荣。
And economists, and I would imagine most of you in the audience, really care greatly about maximizing prosperity.
对于像我这样的现实主义者来说，我关心的是最大化国家的生存前景。
For someone like me who's a realist, what I care about is maximizing the state's prospects of survival.
当你生活在一个无政府状态的体系中时，用国际关系术语来说，这意味着没有更高的权威，没有谁能来救你于危难之中。
And when you live in an anarchic system, and in IR speak, that means there's no higher authority, there's no night watchman that could come down and rescue if you get into trouble.
而这就是国际体系。
And this is the international system.
没有更高的权威。
There's no higher authority.
在这个无政府世界中，生存的最佳方式就是变得极其强大。
In that anarchic world, the best way to survive is to be really powerful.
就像我小时候在纽约市的操场上常说的：你得成为街区里最强壮、最厉害的那个家伙。
As we used to say when I was a kid on New York City playgrounds, you want to be the biggest and baddest dude on the block.
展开剩余字幕（还有 398 条）
这仅仅是因为这是生存的最佳方式。
And that's simply because it's the best way to survive.
如果你足够强大，就没有人敢招惹你。
If you're really powerful, nobody fools around with you.
美国是一个地区霸权国家。
The United States is a regional hegemon.
它是地球上唯一的地区霸权国家。
It's the only regional hegemon on the planet.
我们主导着西半球。
We dominate the Western Hemisphere.
随着中国在经济上日益强大，它已经开始将经济实力转化为军事实力，并试图主导亚洲。
And what China has begun to do as it's got increasingly powerful economically is translate that economic might into military might, and it is trying to dominate Asia.
它想把我们驱逐出第一岛链之外。
It wants to push us out beyond the first island chain.
它想把我们驱逐出第二岛链之外。
It wants to push us out beyond the second island chain.
它希望像我们在西半球那样，我完全理解中国人的想法。
It wants to be like we are in the Western Hemisphere, and I don't blame the Chinese one bit.
如果我是北京的国家安全顾问，我会告诉习近平我们应当努力实现这一点。
If I was the national security adviser in Beijing, that's what I'd be telling Xi Jinping we should be trying to do.
但从美国的角度来看，这是不可接受的，我们不容忍任何平等的竞争者。
But of course, from an American point of view, this is unacceptable, and we do not tolerate peer competitors.
我们不希望世界上再出现另一个区域霸权。
We do not want another regional hegemon on the planet.
在二十世纪，有四个国家曾威胁要成为像我们这样的区域霸权。
In the twentieth century, there were four countries that threatened to become regional hegemons like us.
德意志帝国、大日本帝国、纳粹德国和苏联。
Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and The Soviet Union.
美国在将这四个国家送入历史垃圾堆的过程中发挥了关键作用。
The United States played a key role in putting all four of those countries on the scrap heap of history.
我们希望继续保持世界唯一的区域霸权。
We want to remain the only regional hegemon in the world.
我们是一个无情的大国。
We are a ruthless great power.
永远不要忘记这个事实。
Never want to lose sight of that fact.
其结果是，中国和美国之间爆发了激烈的安全竞争，而这场竞争围绕的是安全概念，而非繁荣。
And the end result of this is you get an intense security competition between China and The United States, and it revolves around the concept of security, not prosperity.
我觉得我简单说一下。
I think is Just very quickly.
你开始看到的是，竞争在所有领域展开，尤其是在高科技领域。
So what you see beginning to happen is that it's in all domains where the competition takes place, especially high-tech.
我们不希望他们在高科技战争中击败我们。
We do not want them defeating this, defeating us in the high-tech war.
我们在经济上与他们竞争，在军事上与他们竞争，这是因为对我们美国来说，生存的最佳方式就是成为世界上唯一的区域霸主。
We are competing with them economically, we are competing with them militarily, and this is because the best way to survive is for us, The United States Of America, to be the only regional hegemon on the planet.
所以，杰夫，让我先为杰夫做个铺垫。
So, Jeff, let me let me set it up for for Jeff here.
所以，杰夫，我认为你和约翰都同意，当前棋盘上的游戏是追求权力。
So, Jeff, I you and John, I think, agree that the the game on the board is power seeking.
我认为约翰的意思是，追求权力有聪明的方式和愚蠢的方式。
I think what John is saying is there are smart ways and dumb ways to pursue power.
遏制中国是一种聪明的方式。
Containing China is a smart way.
我们在乌克兰所做的是愚蠢的方式。
What we're doing in Ukraine is a dumb way.
而你似乎在说，所有追求权力的行为都是坏的。
Whereas it seems like you're saying that all power seeking behavior is bad.
这不应该是我们该玩的游戏。
That's not the game we should be playing.
我们应该 somehow 跳出这个游戏。
We should somehow opt out of that.
你是不是就是这个意思？
Is that is that kind of where you're going?
这么说倒也不算错，但我可能会换一种方式表达。
It's a it's not a bad way to say it, but I would I would put it in in another way.
我读过一本非常好的书，是约翰写的。
I read a very good book, John's.
约翰曾描述过，我来引用他的话，不过他之后也可以自己复述。
John described, I'm going to quote him, but he can quote himself afterwards.
他说，地区霸权国家实际上并不会威胁彼此。
He he said that the regional hegemons don't threaten each other actually.
为什么？
Why?
因为我们之间隔着广阔的海洋。
Because we have big ocean in between.
我深信中国对美国构不成威胁。
I deeply believe that China is not a threat to The United States.
我深信，世界上对美国唯一的威胁——考虑到我们的国土面积和军事力量——只有核战争。
And I deeply believe the only threat to The United States period in the world, the oceans, given our size, and given the military is nuclear war.
我深信我们正接近核战争，因为我们有一种促使我们走向这个方向的思维模式。
I deeply believe we're close to nuclear war because we have a mindset that leads us in that direction.
我们有一种思维模式，认为一切都是生存挑战，因此升级总是正确的做法。
We have a mindset that everything is a challenge for survival and that escalation is therefore always the right approach.
我认为，多一点谨慎就能拯救整个星球。
My view is a little bit of prudence could save the whole planet.
所以我反对乌克兰问题，是因为我根本看不到任何理由让北约必须在俄罗斯边境与乌克兰对峙。
So why I don't like Ukraine is that I don't see any reason in the world that NATO has to be on Russia's border with Ukraine.
正如我所说，我曾是戈尔巴乔夫和叶利钦的顾问，他们渴望和平与合作。
I was, as I said, Gorbachev's adviser and Yeltsin's adviser, and they wanted peace and they wanted cooperation.
但无论他们想要什么，他们都不希望美军出现在他们的边境。
But whatever they wanted, they did not want the US military on their border.
所以如果我们继续像以前那样施压，最终就会走向战争。
So if we continue to push as we did, we would get to war.
约翰对此的解释比任何人都更透彻。
John explained that better than anybody.
我们现在正处于战争状态，甚至今天早上又出现了进一步的升级。
We're now at war and even this morning, there is further escalation.
布林肯说，如果伊朗提供这些导弹，我们就会向俄罗斯深处发射导弹进行反击。
Blinken has said, well, if the Iranians give these missiles, then we will give missiles to hit deep into Russia.
这简直就是自取灭亡的配方。
This is a recipe.
上周，中央情报局局长比尔·伯恩斯说了一件荒谬的事，他自己心知肚明，但中央情报局局长从不说真话。
And then we had Bill Burns, the CIA director, say last week, an absurdity that he knows, but CIA directors never tell the truth.
如果他们说了真话，就会丢掉工作。
If they do, they lose their job.
但他却说，别担心核战争。
But he said, don't worry about nuclear war.
别担心炫耀武力。
Don't worry about saber rattling.
我给你的建议是：要非常担心核战争。
My advice to you is worry a lot about nuclear war.
所以要谨慎行事。
And so be prudent.
你没必要把美军部署在俄罗斯边境。
You don't have to put the US military on Russia's border.
明白吗？
Okay?
我的建议是给俄罗斯和墨西哥——我明天就要去墨西哥，会给他们一些建议。
And my advice to Russia and to Mexico, and I'm going to Mexico tomorrow, I'll give them a piece of advice.
别让中国或俄罗斯在格兰德河建立军事基地。
Don't let China or Russia build a military base on the Rio Grande.
这对墨西哥来说不是好主意。
Not a good idea for Mexico.
这对乌克兰来说也不是好主意。
Not a good idea for Ukraine.
这对俄罗斯来说同样不是好主意。
Not a good idea for Russia.
对中国来说也不是个好主意。
Not a good idea for China.
对美国来说也不是个好主意。
Not a good idea for The United States.
我们需要保持一点距离，以免发生核战争。
We need to stay a little bit away from each other so that we don't have a nuclear war.
顺便说一下，我推荐另一本好书，就是安妮·雅各布森的《核战争：一种情景》。
By the way, I do recommend another good book and that is Annie Jacobsen's Nuclear War, a Scenario.
读这本书需要两个小时。
It takes two hours to read.
书中描述的世界在两小时内终结，它非常有说服力地指出，一枚核弹就能毁掉你一整天，
The world ends in two hours in the book and it's a very persuasive guide that one nuke can ruin your whole day as
正如他们所说。
they say.
杰弗里，
Jeffrey,
因此，我对此的强烈建议是，首先认识到中国对美国的安全构不成威胁。
my my strong advice on this therefore is recognize China, first of all, is not a threat to The United States security.
有广阔的海洋和强大的核威慑力等等。
Big oceans, big nuclear deterrent, and so forth.
其次，我们不必咄咄逼人地针对中国。
Second, we don't have to be in China's face.
我这么说是什么意思呢？
What do I mean by that?
我们不必因为台湾问题而挑起第三次世界大战。
We don't have to provoke World War three over Taiwan.
这是一个漫长而复杂的问题，但让我孙子辈为此送命，简直是难以想象的愚蠢之举。
That's a long complicated issue, but this would be the stupidest thing for my grandchildren to die for imaginable.
每当我们玩这种游戏时，我每天都感到愤慨。
And I resent it every day when we play that game.
我们与中国有三项协议，明确表示我们应置身事外，而我们确实应该如此。
We have three agreements with China that say we're gonna stay out of that, and we should.
那么中国也没有理由发动战争。
And then China would have no reason for war either.
至于经济方面，让我再重申一次，因为昨天有人问我，当时有些人感到惊讶。
China and then on the economic side, let me just reiterate because I was asked yesterday and there was some surprise.
让中国加入世贸组织是好事吗？
Was it good to let China into the the WTO?
我说，当然是好事。
I said, of course.
顺便说一句，它使你们所有人都富裕了。
It enriched all of you, by the way.
它让我也富裕了。
It enriched me.
它使这个国家富裕了。
It enriched this country.
它使整个世界富裕了，包括使中国富裕了。
It enriched the world, including enriching China.
这很正常。
That's normal.
经济不是零和游戏。
Economics is not a zero sum game.
我们都同意这一点。
We all agree on that.
我相信安全也不必是零和游戏。
I believe that security doesn't have to be a zero sum game either.
我们可以彼此保持一点距离。
We can stay a little bit away from each other.
中国也不会花时间抱怨美国是西半球的霸主。
And China does not spend its time bemoaning America being a Western Hemisphere hegemon.
他们不会。
They don't.
他们最大的利益并不在于削弱美国在西半球的权力。
That's not their greatest interest to bring down American power in the Western Hemisphere.
杰夫，那关于保持能源呢
Jeff, what about Hold the energy
继续。
on.
让我们让约翰来回应一下这个问题。
Let's let John respond to this.
只是快速说一下，你们中的大多数可能从未问过自己这个问题：为什么美国到处游走，干涉每个国家的事务？
Just very quickly, most of you have probably never asked yourself the question, why is The United States roaming all over the planet interfering in every country's business?
部分原因是因为它太强大了，但也是因为它是一个区域霸权，这意味着我们在西半球没有威胁，因此可以自由行动。
It's in part because it's so powerful, but it's also because it's a regional hegemon, which means we have no threats in the Western Hemisphere, so we are free to roam.
杰夫，如果中国成为区域霸权，不再需要担心安全问题，那将是巨大的危险。
The great danger, Jeff, if China becomes a regional hegemon and doesn't have to worry about security
像我们一样行事。
behave like us.
是的。
Yeah.
然后他们就会像我们一样行事。
Then they behave like us.
我们不能做得更好吗？
Can't we do better?
但是
But
我的观点是，杰夫，我们要通过阻止他们成为地区霸权来防止这种情况发生。
my point to you, Jeff, is let's prevent that from happening by preventing them from becoming a regional hegemon.
我们不希望他们拥有自由行动的权力。
We don't want them to have freedom to roam.
你刚才提到他们会在墨西哥设立军事基地。
You were talking about them putting military bases in Mexico.
是的。
Yeah.
这正是我们最担心的。
That's our great fear.
那不是我最担心的事。
It's not my great fear.
他们对此毫无兴趣，因为他们也不想被炸飞。
They have no interest in doing so because they don't wanna get blown up either.
所以，杰夫，他们似乎对非洲、印度、俄罗斯有很大兴趣，再说一遍。
So They do seem to have a big interest, Jeff, in Africa, India, Russia, and they are say it again.
中国在某些方面确实有
China has some major Doesn't
在那里设有军事基地。
have military bases there.
嗯，他们正在建造核电站，开展贸易，而且正在建设——
Well, they're building nuclear power plants and trade, and they're building Well,
与各国进行举重训练。
deadlifts with countries.
支持这一点。
In favor of that.
让我们以这种方式竞争吧。
Let's go compete that way.
我完全支持这一点。
I'm all in favor of that.
但是，杰夫，那是因为他们还不是地区霸主。
But, Jeff, that's because they're not a regional hegemon yet.
是的。
Yeah.
如果你试图阻止他们成为地区霸主，我们最终会陷入第三次世界大战，因为正如你自己所说，这绝对可能演变成战争。
If you try to prevent them from being a regional hegemon, we're gonna end up in World War three because as you say yourself, that this can absolutely spill over into war.
我不希望因为理论上他们某天可能会表现得不一样，就让局势演变成战争。
I don't want it to spill over into war on the theory that maybe someday they behave differently.
对我来说，这不是一个好理论。
That's not a good theory for me.
所以，所以，所以不是约翰，那部分。
So so so Not John that part.
所以，约翰，我们能在不直接保卫台湾的情况下遏制中国，阻止其成为地区霸权吗？
So John, can we contain China, prevent them from becoming a regional hegemon without directly defending Taiwan?
我的意思是，这不正是问题的关键所在吗？
I mean, isn't that where the rubber meets the road?
不行。
No.
这不仅仅是台湾的问题。
It's not just Taiwan.
我的意思是，人们或许可以这样认为。
I mean, one could argue.
在东亚地区，有三个潜在的冲突点，你们应该密切关注。
There's sort of three flash points in East Asia that you folks should keep your eye on.
一个是显然的台湾，第二个是南海，第三个是东海。
One is obviously Taiwan, two is the South China Sea, and three is the East China Sea.
我认为，大卫，如今最可能发生冲突的地方并不是在台湾。
And I think, David, that the place where a conflict is most likely today is not over Taiwan.
我可以解释为什么我认为台湾目前以及可预见的未来并不是一个严重的问题。
I could explain why I think Taiwan is not a serious problem at the moment or for the foreseeable future.
南海是一个非常危险的地方。
The South China Sea is a very dangerous place.
即使我们不保卫台湾，也肯定会爆发战争。
We could end up in a war for sure, even if we did not defend Taiwan.
所以台湾，你不想过度强调。
So Taiwan, you don't want to overemphasize.
我同意戴夫和杰夫的观点，我们绝对不希望发生战争，更不希望发生核战争。
I agree with Dave I agree with Jeff that we definitely don't want a war, and we certainly don't want a nuclear war.
他完全正确，如果中国和美国之间爆发任何形式的战争，都有可能发生核战争。
And he is absolutely correct that there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war breaks out of any sort between China and The United States.
我们许多在场的人都经历过冷战，而核战争的威胁在冷战期间一直存在。
Many of us in the audience remember the Cold War, and this was an ever present danger in the Cold War.
但我的观点是，这是不可避免的，因为在没有更高权威的世界里，只要你们关心自身的生存，任何国家都会根深蒂固地追求尽可能强大的实力。
But my argument is that this is inevitable, because in a world where you don't have a higher authority and you care about your survival, you have a deep seated interest as any state in the system to be as powerful as possible.
约翰。
John.
这意味着你要主导你的
And that means dominating your
在这盘棋局中，有一个玩家还没被提到，也许我们可以滑向 puck 将要去的方向。
There is some there is one player on this chessboard that hasn't come up yet, and then maybe we could skate to where the puck is going.
当你谈到南海时，好吧。
You know, when you talk about the South China Sea, okay.
当然。
Sure.
韩国、日本、澳大利亚，这些主要玩家，人口都只有几亿。
South Korea, Japan, Australia, all of those major players there, they're just a couple of 100,000,000 people.
但中国的 population 正在下降。
But then China is in population decline.
习近平在贸易方面似乎正在自我毁灭。
Xi apparently is self destructing in terms of trade.
看起来，由于这些自找的麻烦，遏制策略在那里效果相当不错。
Seems like containment's working pretty well there because of the all the self inflicted wounds.
但增长最快的国家、增长最快的经济体、发展最快的国家是印度，它们似乎采取了一种非常务实的态度。
But the fastest growing country, the fastest growing economy, the quickest to develop is India, and they seem to have a very pragmatic approach.
嘿。
Hey.
他们会从普京那里购买廉价石油，并且作为主权国家，他们有自己的立场。
They'll buy cheap oil from Putin, and they are their own sovereign country with their own point of view.
在未来十年到二十年里，我们难道不应该把重点放在这一点上，以及印度在这其中的角色吗？
Would we not be really well advised over the next ten to twenty years to make that our priority and India's role in this?
你怎么看待他们？
How do you look at them?
嗯，我们确实把印度视为盟友。
Well, we definitely view India as an ally.
对吧？
Right?
它是四方机制的一部分，这是一个我们在东亚建立的、类似勒鲁瓦·戈德堡装置的联盟结构，包括澳大利亚、日本、美国和印度。
It's part of the quad, which is this this Rube Goldberg type alliance structure that we put together in East Asia that includes Australia, Japan, The United States, and India.
印度明智地保持着与俄罗斯的良好关系。
And, India is smartly maintaining its good relations with Russia.
印度人和杰夫与我一样，明白俄罗斯并不是什么重大威胁。
The Indians understand, like Jeff and I do, that the Russians are no great threat.
但从印度的角度来看，真正的威胁是中国。
But from India's point of view, the real threat is China.
是的。
Right.
是的。
Right.
印度关注中国的地方有两个。
And there are two places where India cares about China.
一个是位于喜马拉雅山脉的中印边境，那里确实发生过冲突。
One is on the India China border up in the Himalayas where they've actually had conflicts.
对吧？
Right?
而且爆发战争的真正危险正在存在。
And there's a real danger of war breaking out.
第二个地方，也许更危险，虽然目前不是，但随着时间推移会变得危险，那就是印度洋，因为中国正在效仿美国。
The second place, which is maybe even more dangerous, not at the moment but will be over time, is the Indian Ocean because the Chinese are imitating The United States.
他们不仅想成为区域霸主，还希望发展力量投送能力。
They not only want to be a regional hegemon, they want to develop power projection capability.
因此，中国正在建设一支蓝水海军，能够从东亚出发，穿过马六甲海峡，经由印度洋抵达波斯湾。
So the Chinese are building a blue water navy that can come out of East Asia, through the Straits Of Malacca, through the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf.
一旦你开始谈论穿越印度洋，印度人就会感到不安。
And once you start talking about going through the Indian Ocean, the Indians get spooked.
对。
Right.
这时，美国人和印度人就会走到一起。
And that's when the Americans and the Indians come together.
好的。
Okay.
让我们从工程的角度来思考一下，如果可以的话。
Let's think of this from an engineering point of view, if we could.
中国为什么在发展海军？
Why are the Chinese developing the Navy?
因为四十年来，我一直在读关于南海、东海和印度洋针对中国的所有关键通道的文章。
Because for forty years I've read essays on all of the choke points in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Indian Ocean against China.
这就是我们的政策：关键通道。
That's our policy, choke points.
看看马六甲海峡。
Look at the Malacca Straits.
看看我们在这里能做什么。
Look what we can do here.
第一岛链。
First island chain.
这是美国的战略。
This is American strategy.
我们能阻止中国潜艇进入太平洋吗？
Can we keep the Chinese submarines out of the Pacific Ocean?
第一岛链，等等。
First China first island chain and so forth.
所以，他们当然会做出反应。
So, of course, they react.
他们很富有。
They're rich.
他们会建造一支海军，以确保其经济赖以生存的石油运输畅通。
They're gonna build a navy so that they can get their oil on which their economy runs.
我们能不能和他们理性一点，决定不再设置海上咽喉要道，这样就不必面临一场真的会毁掉我们一切的核战争？
Can we be a little bit sensible with them and decide how we're not gonna have choke points and then we don't have to have a nuclear war, which is really gonna ruin our day?
这就是重点。
That's the point.
我们可以稍微想一想。
We can think a little bit.
我们可以从他们的角度来理解。
We can understand it from their perspective.
我们可以从我们的角度来理解。
We can understand it from our perspective.
避免冲突。
Deconfliction.
顺便说一句，我不认为印度是盟友。
By the way, I don't believe India is an ally.
印度是一个超级大国。
India is a superpower.
印度会有自己非常独特的利益。
India is gonna have its own very distinctive interest.
谢谢。
Thank you.
它不会成为美国的盟友。
It's not going to be an ally of The United States.
我本人非常欣赏印度，而且我们正在为此关注。
I happen to like India enormously and and We're making our eye for that.
他们的政策。
Their policies.
但认为印度会与美国结盟对抗中国，这只是华盛顿某些人的幻想，因为这又是华盛顿的一种错觉——他们应该去拿个护照，去看看世界，真正地理解一些东西。
But the idea that India is gonna ally with The United States against China in somebody's dream in Washington because it's another delusion in Washington because they should get a passport and go see the world and and and understand something.
但是杰弗里，如果
But Jeffrey, if
这些是我现在在华盛顿的失败学生，因为他们没有听教授的话。
they These are my these are my failed students in Washington right now because they didn't listen to their professor.
杰弗里，我们现在把iPhone放在印度生产了。
Jeffrey, we're we're making our iPhones in India now.
这难道不是吗？再说一遍？
Is that not And say it again?
我们正在将iPhone的生产转移出去。
We're moving iPhone production.
库珀，也许你对经济学比较了解，谈谈这个影响吧。
Cooper maybe, Cooper, you're into economics here and that impact.
你看到苹果正在从中国搬离。
You you got Apple moving out of China.
你看到日本在资助企业，让它们离开中国，前往越南和印度。
You've got Japan funding people, leaving China to Vietnam and to India.
这不就是这里的解决方案吗？
Is that not the solution here?
当我们与中国脱钩时，他们似乎又回到了谈判桌前。
As we decouple from China, it seems like they come back to the table.
我们曾看到习近平将所有风险资本和投资逐出中国。
We had Xi Jinping kick all the venture capitalists, all investment out of China.
他清除了所有的教育初创企业。
He got rid of all the education startups.
然后，不管怎样，两三年后，他跑到旧金山，让我们再投更多钱，问我们：你们去哪儿了？
And then, whatever, two or three years later, he's in San Francisco asking all of us to invest more money and say, where'd you go?
好的。
Okay.
首先，要是十年前让我重新来过，我们再看看这些决定有多明智。
First of all, invite me back ten years and we'll see how smart all these decisions are
习近平的？
Xi Jinping's?
不是，不是这样的。
It's it's no.
我在说的是，是的，我们搬到了印度。
I'm talking about, yes, we moved to India.
那是我们的好盟友。
That's our great ally.
然后我们还会遇到其他问题。
And then then we're gonna have other other issues.
越南。
Well, Vietnam.
是的。
Yeah.
好的。
Okay.
我认为你说过习近平的贸易政策正在自我崩溃之类的。
I think you said that Xi Jinping's trade policy is self imploding or something.
看起来有很多自找的麻烦。
It seems like there's a lot of self inflicted wounds.
不是。
No.
不是。
Not.
让我解释一下这些麻烦是什么。
Let me explain what the wounds are.
好的。
Okay.
这些创伤是美国故意制定的政策，阻止你们向中国销售商品，并阻止中国从你们这里购买商品。
The wounds are The United States' deliberate policy to stop you from selling things to China and to stop China buying things from you.
这并不是自找的。
That's not self inflicted
你在这里错了。
You're wrong here.
等一下。
Wait a minute.
等一下，让我先说，请允许我说。
Wait a Just to say, let me say, please.
是的。
Yeah.
因为这对在场各位的经济至关重要。
Because this is very important for the economy of the people in this room.
这是一个在2014年左右做出的旨在遏制中国的决定，并且此后一直系统性地实施。
This is a decision that was taken around 2014 to contain China, and it's been systematically applied since then.
拜登延续了特朗普的所有做法，还增加了更多措施，这并不令人意外。
And it's not a surprise that Biden kept all the things that Trump did and added more.
现在特朗普说，我要保留拜登所保留的所有政策，还要做得更多。
And now Trump says, I'm gonna do all the things that Biden has kept in place, and I'm gonna do more.
这并不是自伤。
This is not a self inflicted wound.
美国已经对华关闭了市场。
The United States has closed the market to China.
明白吗？
Okay?
这聪明吗？
Is that smart?
不，这并不聪明。
No, it's not smart.
这是否带来了美国制造业岗位的恢复？顺便问一下，
Is it leading to is it, by the way, recuperating American manufacturing jobs?
零。
Zero.
它可能会稍微转移一些岗位。
It may shift them a bit.
它可能会让事情变得效率更低。
It may, may make things less efficient.
它可能会让你们所有人损失更多钱，或者赚得更少。
It may, may make all of you lose a bit more money or not make as much money.
但它能解决美国的任何一个经济问题吗？
But is it going to solve any single economic problem in The United States?
绝对不行。
No way.
让我让约翰·斯派西说。
Me let's let John Spicy.
我只是想就这个问题问杰夫一个问题。
I I just want to ask Jeff a question on this.
我的观点是，这就是世界运行的方式。
My argument is that this is the way the world works.
是的。
Yes.
知道。
Know.
而且确实如此。
And it is.
而且确实如此。
And it is.
但如果我是在描述世界的真实运作方式，你该怎么反驳我？
But if I'm describing how the world really works, how do you beat me?
原因是你描述了一个世界，我认为你比任何我读过或认识的人更清晰地阐述了美国外交政策是如何运作的。
The the reason is you've described a world, you've described I think better than any person I ever read or know how American foreign policy works.
我认为这很可能让我们所有人都被炸飞。
I think it's likely to get us all blown up.
你之所以反对，并不是因为约翰，而是因为他准确地描述了一种极其错误的做法——即追求权力，即使你作为地区霸主是安全的，但只要另一个地区霸主也采取和你一样的做法，你就永远不安全。
You you not and you you titled not not because of John, but because he's made an accurate description of a profoundly misguided approach, which is power seeking, even if you're safe as a regional hegemon, you're never safe if another regional hegemon does what you do.
不。
No.
你不能允许这种情况发生，因此你必须干预世界上每一个地方。
You can't allow that to happen, so you have to meddle every single place in the world.
现在，我只想说，请等一下，让我把话说完，因为这很重要。
This now, all I'm saying wait, wait, let me just finish because it's important.
必须指出的是，在核时代，你没有第二次机会。
That it is important to say, try this in the nuclear age, you don't get a second chance.
因此，对我来说，这是我们生活中最明确的事实：我们现在正与拥有6000枚核弹头的俄罗斯进行一场直接战争，而不是代理战争，是直接战争。
So this to me is the most definitive fact of our lives, which is we are now in a war, direct war, direct war, not proxy war, direct war with Russia, which has 6,000 nuclear warheads.
我想不到还有什么比这更愚蠢的了，更何况我知道我们是如何一步步陷入这个泥潭的，因为我亲眼目睹了这一切——因为我们以为必须干预，甚至把北约扩张到格鲁吉亚、高加索地区，以及乌克兰。
I can't think of anything more imbecilic than that, aside from the fact that I know step by step, because I saw it with my own eyes, how we got into that mess because we thought we had to meddle up to including putting NATO into Georgia in the caucuses of all places and Ukraine.
所以我们这么做了，因为我们必须干预，因为我们不能让‘差不多就行’这种想法存在。
So we made that because we have to meddle because we couldn't let good enough stand.
如果我们对中国也采取同样的做法，就会爆发战争，但这可不是在读克里米亚战争或第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战的历史。
If we do the same with China, there will be a war, but it's not like reading about the Crimean War or World War one or World War two.
这就是我的不同之处。
That's my difference.
这是一个很好的理论，能解释很多问题，但天啊，如果你能做出ChatGPT，能培养乐观主义者，能做其他所有事情，我们就能够避免核战争。
This is a fine theory that explains a lot of things, but damn, if you can make chat GPT or you can make optimists or you can make all the rest, we can avoid nuclear war.
所以，别只说这是不可避免的，至少做得好一点。
So just do a little bit better than saying it's inevitable.
好的。
Alright.
所以我们只剩下
So we only have
一分钟了，我想把时间交给约翰。
a minute left, so I wanna give it to John.
我只是想问一下
I I just wanna ask
他有个问题。
He had a question.
我知道，但我们只剩一分钟了，这太糟了。
I know, but we only have a minute left, and it sucks.
我们得再给五分钟。
We got we got to have five minutes.
这是有史以来最棒的小组讨论。
This is the best panel ever.
你是我一生中见过最棒的。
You've been on in my life.
我们能再给十分钟吗？
Can we just have ten minutes?
五分钟。
Five minutes.
我们得有五到十分钟的最棒访谈。
We got to have five or ten minutes of best panel.
这是不是我见过最棒的访谈？
Is this the best panel I
我觉得很抱歉。
feel like I'm sorry.
说个糟糕的
Calling an awful
等等。
Wait.
等等。
Wait.
等等。
Wait.
在好吧。
Before okay.
我们还有五分钟。
We got five minutes.
所以在离开这个话题之前，约翰，你的书名叫《大国政治的悲剧》。
So before before we leave this topic, John, your book is called The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
你显然理解大国对抗、大国竞争如何导致灾难的悲剧性一面。
You clearly understand the tragic aspect of how great power rivalry, great power competition can lead to disaster.
杰夫的意思是，我们现在处于核时代，这将导致核战争。
What Jeff is saying is we're now in the nuclear age and it's gonna lead to nuclear war.
所以我们必须走这条路吗？还是有办法摆脱它？
So do we have to be on this path or is there a way off of it?
两点。
Two points.
在我的内心，我支持杰夫。
In my heart, I'm with Jeff.
但在我的理智上，我不支持杰夫。
In my head, I'm not with Jeff.
我希望他是对的，但我并不相信他是对的。
I wish he were right, but I don't believe he's right.
直接回答你的问题，我认为没有出路。
To answer your question head on, I believe that there is no way out.
我们被困在一个铁笼里。
We are in an iron cage.
这就是国际政治的运作方式，因为你处在一个无政府体系中，永远无法确定系统中的一个强大国家不会来攻击你，给你带来一个世纪的国家屈辱。
This is just the way international politics works, and it's because you're in an anarchic system where you can never be sure that a really powerful state in the system won't come after you and inflict a century of national humiliation on you.
因此，你竭尽全力通过牺牲其他强国来获取权力，以避免这种情况，而这会导致各种问题。
So you go to great lengths to avoid that by trying to gain power at the expense of another power, and that leads to all sorts of trouble.
战争可以避免吗？
Can war be avoided?
我喜欢区分安全竞争——我认为这是不可避免的，以及战争——即安全竞争演变为战争。
I like to distinguish between security competition, which I think is inevitable, and war, which is where security competition evolves into war.
我认为战争是可以避免的，幸运的是，我们在冷战期间在这方面取得了成功。
I think war can be avoided, and we were thankfully successful in that regard during the Cold War.
希望在美国与中国竞争的未来发展中也是如此。
And hopefully that will be the case in The US China competition moving forward.
我能保证吗？
Can I guarantee that?
不能。
No.
这让我非常不安吗？
Does this disturb me greatly?
是的。
Yes.
但再说一次，这仅仅是
But again, this is just the
悲剧的世界尽头，我们生活其中。我只是想提出一个情景，给你们一个假设，看看你们的反应，因为我们原本打算花不少时间讨论中东。
tragic Let end of the world we live me just ask one because we're a little we're a little bit I know we were gonna try and talk about Middle East for a good chunk of this, so I just want a scenario propose or kind of give you guys a scenario and get your reaction.
因为这似乎是当前最紧迫的冲突舞台。
Because it is kind of what feels to be the most imminent theater of conflict.
约旦河西岸，以色列人正在加强定居点的建设。
The West Bank, The the Israelis are buttressing the settlements.
有很多检查站。
There's a lot of checkpoints.
局势正变得非常紧张。
Things are getting very tense.
他们频繁发动突袭，巴勒斯坦人在这里的生活变得极其艰难，人们真正担心约旦河西岸会崩溃。
They're running raids, and it's becoming a very difficult place to live for Palestinians, and there's a real concern that the West Bank collapses
以色列人。
Israelis.
还有以色列人。
And Israelis.
但真正的风险在于，约旦河西岸会崩溃并演变成一个真正的冲突地带。
But there's a real risk that the West Bank collapses and turns into a real conflict zone.
如果发生这种情况，约旦就在旁边，他们不会任由巴勒斯坦人被屠杀。
If that happens, the Jordanians are sitting right there, and they're not going to let Palestinians get slaughtered.
他们必须采取行动，而他们是美国如此重要的盟友。
They're going to have to do something, and they're such a strong ally of The United States.
这是否会引发一系列反应？沙特会怎么做？
Does that trigger a theater of response where, what is Saudi going to do?
其他人是否会被卷入该地区？
Are others going to be drawn to the region?
西岸的崩溃，或西岸正在酝酿的冲突，是否会成为点燃整个地区的导火索，导致各方纷纷介入，从而演变成一场我们不得不更深卷入的地区性危机？
Does the collapse of the West Bank or the conflict that seems to be brewing in the West Bank become this kind of tinderbox for everyone showing up and getting involved and create some sort of regional issue that we get drawn into in a bigger way.
我可以先发言，让约翰最后总结吗？
Can I start and have John have the last word?
我每天在联合国工作，与来自世界各地的大使讨论这个问题。
I I work each day at the UN and discuss this issue with ambassadors from all over the world.
在过去五十年里，各方就实现和平的方案达成了共识。
There is, over the last fifty years, an agreement on what would make for peace.
共识是建立两个国家，或许在1967年6月4日边界之间设立一道高墙，巴勒斯坦国成为第194个联合国会员国，首都设在东耶路撒冷，并对伊斯兰圣地拥有管辖权。
And the agreement is two states, maybe with a big wall between them, on the 06/04/1967 borders with a state of Palestine being the hundred ninety fourth UN member state and its capital in East Jerusalem and control over the Islamic holy sites.
这就是国际法。
And that is international law.
国际法院刚刚重申，约旦河西岸的以色列定居点是非法的。
The International Court of Justice just reaffirmed that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal.
国际刑事法院很可能认定，或国际法院很可能认定，以色列违反了1948年《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》，我坚信以色列确实违反了该公约。
The International Criminal Court is likely to find or ICJ is likely to find that Israel is in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which I very much believe it to be in violation.
因此，我的解决方案是：对各国实施国际法，筑起你需要的任何高度的墙，但必须赋予巴勒斯坦人权利，建立一个巴勒斯坦国，停止以色列对巴勒斯坦人的屠杀，终结以色列的种族隔离制度，实现两个国家和平共处。
So my own solution to this is implement international law to states, build the wall as high as you need to build, but you give Palestinian rights, you establish a state of Palestine, you stop the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, you stop the Israeli apartheid state, and you have two states living side by side.
以色列坚决反对这一点。
Israel is dead set against that.
如今整个以色列政治体制都坚决反对这一点。
The entire Israeli political governance now is dead set against that.
约旦河西岸数以十万计的非法定居者都坚决反对这一点。
Hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers in the West Bank are dead set against that.
斯莫特里奇、本-加维尔、加兰特、内塔尼亚胡都坚决反对这一点。
Smotrich, Ben Gavir, Gallant, Netanyahu are dead set against that.
所以我的观点是，这与以色列想要什么毫无关系。
So my view is it has nothing to do with what Israel wants.
这关乎国际法的执行。
It has to do with enforcement of international law.
因此，我希望看到这一方案被实施，不是因为以色列同意，而是因为它被强加实施。
So I want to see this imposed, not because Israel agrees to it, but because it is imposed.
而有一个国家阻碍了这一方案的实施。
And there is one country that stands in the way of imposing this.
不是伊朗，不是沙特，不是埃及，不是俄罗斯，不是中国，也不是欧盟任何国家。
Not Iran, not the Saudis, not Egypt, not Russia, not China, not any country in the European Union.
只有一个国家，而且仅此一个国家，那就是美利坚合众国和以色列游说集团。
One country and one country alone, And that is because of The United States Of America and the Israel lobby.
我也知道有人写过一本关于此事的非常好的书。
Somebody wrote a very good book about that too that I know.
约翰写的这本书是迄今为止关于此事最出色的著作。
The best book ever written about it by John.
这正是阻止了能够带来和平的解决方案的原因。
And that's what stops the solution that could bring peace.
我相信我们应该推动和平，因为这不仅会给巴勒斯坦人和以色列人带来和平，还能避免可能引发第三次世界大战的另一个火药桶。
And I believe we should bring peace because not only would that bring peace to the Palestinians and peace to the Israelis, but it would avoid potentially another flashpoint that could easily end up in World War three.
让我回答你关于升级可能性的问题，约旦是否会介入。
Let me answer your question about escalation potential, the Jordanians coming in.
以色列面临三大问题，除了社会内部的离心力问题之外。
Israel faces three big problems, aside from problems with centrifugal forces inside the society.
一个是巴勒斯坦问题，包括加沙和约旦河西岸。
One is the Palestinian problem, which is both in Gaza and in the West Bank.
这是第一个。
That's one.
第二个是真主党，第三个是伊朗。
Two is Hezbollah, and three is Iran.
我认为你所描述的情况几乎不可能发生，即以色列如果在约旦河西岸像在加沙那样大肆行动，约旦、埃及或沙特会介入。
I think there is virtually no chance of what you described happening, which is if the Israelis were to go on a rampage in the West Bank, similar to what they've done in Gaza, that the Jordanians would come in, or the Egyptians, or the Saudis.
他们根本没有军事能力。
They simply don't have the military capability.
这是一个以色列完全占据主导地位的情景。
This is a scenario where the Israelis completely dominate.
因此，就以色列与巴勒斯坦问题的升级而言，我认为没什么太大风险。
So in terms of escalation with regard to the Israel Palestine problem, I don't think there's much potential.
真主党是另一个问题，但主要是因为它与伊朗有关联。
Hezbollah is a different issue, but mainly because it's linked with Iran.
对吧？
Right?
伊朗才是真正的危险引爆点，因为你知道，俄罗斯现在与伊朗关系密切。
And Iran is the really dangerous flashpoint because, as you know, the Russians are now closely allied with the Iranians.
中国也在朝这个方向发展。
The Chinese are moving in that direction as well.
如果以色列与伊朗发生战争，我们很可能也会卷入其中。
And if Israel gets involved in a war with Iran, we're gonna come in, in all likelihood.
记住，以色列人在4月1日袭击了伊朗驻大马士革大使馆，4月14日，伊朗人
Remember, when the Israelis attacked the the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1, on April 14, the Iranians
进行了报复，是的。
retaliated Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
但是
But
但我们参与了，我们
but we were involved We were
我们事先得到警告了，对吧？
we were forewarned, weren't we?
是的。
Yes.
我们事先得到了警告。
We were forewarned.
是的。
Yeah.
但重点是我们参与了战斗。
But the point is that we were involved in the fighting.
没错。
Right.
我们与以色列人、法国人、英国人、约旦人和沙特人都有牵涉。
We were involved with the Israelis, with the French, the British, the Jordanians, and the Saudis.
我们都参与了战斗。
We were all involved in the fighting.
这就触及了升级的问题。
So this gets at the escalation problem.
为了应对伊朗的升级态势，事实是伊朗并不想与美国开战，美国也不想与伊朗开战。
Now to counter the Iranian escalation scenario, the fact is Iran does not want a war with The United States, and The United States does not want a war with Iran.
而是以色列人，尤其是本雅明·内塔尼亚胡，一直在试图把我们拖入战争，因为他希望我们美国狠狠打击伊朗，削弱其军事力量，特别是针对其核能力，因为正如你所知，他们已经接近能够研发核武器的临界点。
And it's the Israelis, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, who been who has been trying to sort of suck us into a war because he wants us, The United States, to really whack Iran, weaken it militarily, and especially to go after its nuclear capabilities, because as you well know, they are close to the point where they can develop nuclear weapons.
所以是以色列人希望我们卷入一场与伊朗的大规模战争。
So the Israelis are the ones who want us to get involved in a big war with Iran.
这就是升级的引爆点。
That's the escalation flashpoint.
关键问题是，你是否认为美国和伊朗如果暗中合作，能否阻止以色列人
And the $64,000 question is whether you think The United States and Iran kind of colluding can work together to prevent the Israelis from getting
我们，这个问题的答案将取决于下一届政府的领导人是谁？
us that that question will be answered based on the next who who who leads the next administration?
如果你相信下一届政府的领导人是否重要，那确实如此。
Well, if you believe that it matters who leads the next administration, that's true.
把它删掉。
Take it out.
好的。
Yeah.
谢谢。
Thank you.
不客气。
You're welcome.
让我这么说吧，杰弗里和约翰，我现在明白为什么萨克斯一直不停提起你们俩了。
Let me just say, Jeffrey and John, now I know why Sacks will not stop talking about you two.
这是迄今为止活动中最精彩的小组讨论。
This was most amazing panel of the event so far.
为杰弗里·萨克斯和约翰·米尔斯海默鼓掌。
Give it up for Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer.
好的。
Alright.
哇。
Wow.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。