和平取决于实力魅力均衡，但欲速则不达！

——俄乌战争：战场分析、军事停火、和平谈判与“第三条道路的国际再平衡”

By Archer Hong Qian

处理国际关系与处理男女关系有一个极其类似之处，那就是主动修好或促和方，往往让自己陷入被动境地！但只要智慧足够+实力、魅力十足，被动终会变主动！

对我来说，也不能说不站队，出了问题，我一般站弱者、站文明者一边，但我觉得从根上解决问题比站队、追就责任更能避免同样的问题再发生。所以，在作以下分析前，我毫不隐瞒，由俄罗斯入侵乌克兰引发的“俄乌战争”问题上，我自始至今是站队乌克兰立场。同时，考虑到复杂的历史现实情况，我依然坚持2024年初提出的“第三条道路”（http://symbiosism.com.cn/9487.html）。

最近看到芬兰总理的“分阶段和平进程（含三个不容谈判的原则）”其实是对川普总统提出的“止战和平计划”（被有意无意说成站队俄罗斯招来泄愤式谩骂）的延续及补充，而且，与我发表的《终结乌克兰战争的第三条道路》，在努力的方向，思路和价值观上——“让任何统治全世界的帝国政治企图成为不可能”（柯尼斯堡的康德），是完全一致的！

今年出现的新情况有

战场分析：

截至2025年3月19日，俄乌战争已持续三年，双方战场态势仍呈胶着状态，目前俄罗斯略占优势，但前线战斗激烈双方消耗严重，双方都难以取得决定性胜利。俄罗斯方面，军事消耗和人员伤亡巨大，经济上并没有象一战时的德国那样虽然在军事和情治上取得一定优势（肢解了沙皇政权）但因受四面受制裁财力差不多耗尽——而俄罗斯虽然受到美国制裁却三年战争下来一直还可从欧盟、印度、中国获得能源大量收入，因而不可能垮掉；支撑乌克兰战力的基础是40%由美国支持、30%靠欧洲、30%靠自己，因而在战场消耗巨大的情况下，很难持续支撑更难在长达1300公里战线上取得决定性胜利（目前差不多退出俄罗斯库尔斯克地区回到乌克兰本土）。

军事停火：

近期，继3月11日乌克兰与美国在沙特吉达达成停火30天共识之后，18日俄罗斯总统普京与美国总统特朗普进行了超过两小时的通话，双方同意在未来30天内暂停对乌克兰能源基础设施的攻击、俄乌进行175名战俘的交换、停止黑海运输线攻击，作为迈向和平的第一步。此外，双方计划，未来可能在沙特阿拉伯举行进一步谈判。

然而，普京拒绝全面停火，提出三项与乌克兰提出的三个“和平条件”（红线）完全牴牾，美国及欧洲也无法接受的三个“停火条件”（红线），实则是对自身有利的三个漫天要价的“谈判条件”，这三个条件只要最后成为“和平协议”的一部分俄罗斯就赚了，还顺带离间了美国与欧洲及乌克兰的关系。

评论：美俄总统通话，在“军事停火”上有三个小进展，但没有达到川普30天全面无条件停火的目的，只能算是普京给了川普做和平中间人一个小小面子，但设置了三个川普无法逾越的障碍，所以我们看到川普与普京通话后美国政府公布的新闻稿中完全没有提及普京的三个“谈判条件”，只有俄罗斯单方公布，当然，美方公布的普京答应不支持伊朗拥核的内容，俄罗斯公布的新闻稿也没有提及。但乌克兰总统泽连斯基方面，对川普与普京通话表示谨慎乐观，强调不会承认被占领土为俄罗斯的一部分，认为普京的条件可能削弱乌克兰，是拒绝无条件结束战争的要求。

和平谈判：

尽管在停火和和平谈判方面取得了一定进展，但俄乌战争的前景仍不明朗，区分“军事停火”与“和平谈判”很重要，军事停火，必须是无条件的，和平谈判，当然双方都可以提对等条件（比如俄方提出乌不能接受军援，乌方也可以提出俄不能接受军援和经援），但要搁置非对等条件，最后只能是基于国际再平衡“第三条道路”，正因为如此，谈判是一个漫长的过程。朝鲜战争在1951年实现无条件停火后，和平谈判谈了三年（1951-1953）才签订“停战协定”。俄乌战争这事，能在2025年年终有个结果，就算进展神速——高效而公平了！（http://symbiosism.com.cn/9317.html）

最后必须强调的是：处理国际冲突与处理男女冲突的一个类似之处，就是修好的主动方往往让自己陷入被动境地！所以，美国总统川普再怎么想要和平，归根到底，也必须明镜般清楚：和平取决于实力魅力均衡，欲速则不达！

基于国际再平衡的“第三条道路”：

没有军事平衡，谈判无从开始：

俄罗斯若彻底崩溃，可能引发更大混乱（核武风险）；乌克兰若失去西方支持，则可能被迫屈服于俄罗斯。

没有外交平衡，和平无法持久：
俄罗斯不会接受单方面失败，普京更不会接受“无条件投降”；乌克兰也不会接受“被迫中立”或“被迫割让领土”。

“第三条道路”必须设定“分阶段解决”：
短期停火（军事稳定）；中期谈判（乌东与克里米亚公投）；长期和平机制（国际安全再平衡）。

这一方案的可能性：

• 需要美国愿意提供经济安全保障避免乌克兰被迫接受割地。

• 需要俄罗斯能接受阶段性撤军+乌克兰接受乌东自治中立公投选项。

• 让欧洲国家接手“维和部队”角色，降低北约直接介入的对抗性。

• 需要欧洲+中立国家（如印度、土耳其、沙特）的共同推动。

• 促使联合国重组托管理事会+人权委员会并更名为“全球共生理事会”，让国际社会更公平有效地解决冲突。

“第三条道路”是当下最现实、最可持续的和平解决方案之一。它避免了“单方胜利或失败”的极端情况，为未来建立长期和平提供了新范式。如果得到国际支持，有望成为21世纪国际冲突解决的蓝本。

Archer Hong Qian

2025.3.19晨于Vancouver

链接：和平取决于实力魅力均衡，但欲速则不达！——俄乌战争：战场分析、军事停火、和平谈判与“第三条道路的国际再平衡” - 全球共生研究院

Peace Depends on a Balance of Strength and Charisma—Haste Makes Waste!

—Russia-Ukraine War: Battlefield Analysis, Military Ceasefire, Peace Negotiations, and the "Third Path" for International Rebalancing

Handling International Relations Is Like Managing Romantic Relationships—The One Who Seeks Reconciliation First Often Ends Up in a Passive Position! But With Enough Wisdom, Strength, and Charisma, Passivity Will Eventually Turn Into Initiative!

Before proceeding with the following analysis, I make no secret of my stance: Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, which began with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I have consistently supported Ukraine.

However, given the complex historical realities of this conflict, I continue to stand by the "Third Path" I proposed in early 2024. (http://symbiosism.com.cn/9487.html)

Battlefield Analysis:

As of March 19, 2025, the Russia-Ukraine war has lasted three years. The battlefield remains deadlocked, with Russia holding a slight advantage. However, the fighting is intense, and both sides have suffered significant losses, making a decisive victory difficult.

• Russia's situation:

• Heavy military and personnel losses but sustained by energy revenues from the EU, India, and China, despite U.S. sanctions.

• Unlike Germany in World War I, Russia has not faced complete economic exhaustion due to continued energy trade.

• Cannot collapse easily, despite sanctions.

• Ukraine's situation:

• 40% of its military power relies on U.S. support, 30% on Europe, and 30% on its own resources.

• Sustaining war efforts is becoming increasingly difficult, especially across a 1,300 km front line.

• Currently, Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from the Russian Kursk region and returned to Ukrainian territory.

Military Ceasefire:

• On March 11, Ukraine and the U.S. agreed to a 30-day ceasefire in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

• On March 18, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump spoke for over two hours and agreed to:

• Suspend attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days.

• Exchange 175 prisoners of war.

• Halt attacks on Black Sea transport routes as an initial step toward peace.

• Further negotiations are planned in Saudi Arabia.

However, Putin refused a full ceasefire, proposing three conditions that completely contradict Ukraine’s red lines. These conditions were also unacceptable to the U.S. and Europe, as they would benefit Russia while creating divisions between the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine.

Commentary:

• The Putin-Trump conversation resulted in only minor progress, failing to achieve Trump's goal of a comprehensive 30-day unconditional ceasefire.

• Putin offered Trump a symbolic gesture as a "peace mediator" but deliberately set up three barriers that Trump cannot overcome.

• The U.S. government’s official statement on the call omitted Putin’s conditions, while Russia unilaterally disclosed them.

• Putin agreed not to support Iran's nuclear ambitions, but Russia's statement did not mention this commitment, which the U.S. did include in its statement.

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky cautiously welcomed the conversation but made it clear that Ukraine will never recognize occupied territories as part of Russia.

• Ukraine sees Putin’s conditions as a potential weakening strategy and a refusal to unconditionally end the war.

Peace Negotiations:

While some progress has been made in ceasefire talks and peace negotiations, the outlook remains uncertain.

• Military ceasefire must be unconditional.

• Peace negotiations must be based on equal conditions (e.g., if Russia demands Ukraine not receive military aid, Ukraine can demand that Russia stop receiving military and economic support).

• Non-reciprocal conditions should be set aside.

Ultimately, the resolution must be based on the "Third Path" of international rebalancing (Reference).

Example: The Korean War achieved an unconditional ceasefire in 1951, but peace negotiations lasted three years (1951–1953) before a formal armistice was signed.
If the Russia-Ukraine war reaches an agreement by the end of 2025, it would already be an exceptionally fast and fair resolution.

Final Key Point: Strength and Charisma in Peacemaking

Handling international conflicts is similar to resolving relationship disputes—the party that actively seeks reconciliation often places itself in a passive position.

Thus, no matter how much President Trump desires peace, he must clearly understand this fundamental truth:

Peace depends on a balance of strength and charisma—haste makes waste!

The "Third Path" of International Rebalancing

1. Without Military Balance, Negotiations Cannot Begin

• If Russia collapses completely, it may trigger greater chaos, including nuclear risks.

• If Ukraine loses Western support, it may be forced into unfavorable concessions to Russia.

2. Without Diplomatic Balance, Peace Will Not Last

• Russia will not accept a unilateral defeat, and Putin will never agree to unconditional surrender.

• Ukraine will not accept forced neutrality or territorial concessions.

3. The "Third Path" Must Be a Step-by-Step Process

• Short-term: Ceasefire to stabilize the military situation.

• Mid-term: Referendums in eastern Ukraine and Crimea to determine their future.

• Long-term: A new international security balance to ensure sustainable peace.

The Feasibility of This Plan

To succeed, the following conditions must be met:

✅ The U.S. must provide economic and security guarantees to prevent Ukraine from being forced into territorial concessions.

✅ Russia must accept phased withdrawal, while Ukraine must agree to a neutrality referendum in eastern Ukraine.

✅ European nations must take over the peacekeeping role, reducing NATO's direct military involvement to avoid escalating tensions.

✅ Middle-ground nations (India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) must mediate and support the plan.

✅ The United Nations should restructure its Trusteeship Council and Human Rights Council into a "Global Symbiosis Council" to fairly and effectively resolve conflicts.

Conclusion: The "Third Path" as a Blueprint for 21st-Century Conflict Resolution

The "Third Path" is the most realistic and sustainable peace solution for the Russia-Ukraine war.

• It avoids the extremes of absolute victory or total defeat.

• It provides a long-term framework for international peace.

• If supported by the international community, it could become a new model for global conflict resolution in the 21st century.

• 
  

Archer Hong Qian
March 19, 2025—Vancouver