冷战后的美国对俄政策：从老布什到克林顿

发布时间：2018-05-11 16:12

本文选题：美国对俄政策 + 美俄关系　；参考：《中共中央党校》2012年博士论文

【摘要】：冷战后，美俄关系曾经历过一段短暂的“蜜月期”。在此期间，美俄两国宣布不再视对方为敌人，宣称两国要构建“成熟的战略伙伴关系”。两国在“战略伙伴关系”的相互定位下，迅速在核裁军谈判和防核武器技术扩散等诸多安全领域开展合作，美国也积极介入并推动俄罗斯国内的民主化和市场化改革进程。但随着美国开始启动北约东扩进程、介入独联体地区事务，美俄之间龃龉和摩擦逐渐增多,两国在诸多国际和地区安全事务上开始争吵。随着1998年俄罗斯金融危机的爆发、美俄之间援助资金丑闻的频现，俄罗斯人开始怀疑美国和西方指明的市场化改革道路是否符合俄罗斯的国情与国家利益。在1999年3月美国不顾俄罗斯的反对而对南联盟进行空中打击后，美俄关系跌到冷战后的冰点。而此时美国国内开始质疑俄罗斯是否已在西方化和民主化的道路上“脱轨”，要求调整对俄政策，，美俄关系也因此进一步弱化。本文致力于通过综合分析老布什和克林顿两任美国总统对俄政策的宏观战略目标与微观决策环境，尝试对美俄两国关系从“蜜月”到“摩擦”的转变原因提供解答。在政策剖析过程中，笔者将注重考察老布什与克林顿对俄政策变化的原因与动机，结合分析影响冷战后美国外交与阻碍两国关系发展的诸多要素，以求更清晰地定位冷战后的美俄关系。本文除导论和结语外，共分四章。第一章主要剖析了老布什时期美国对苏超越遏制战略出台的背景、内容和实施过程中所发生的阶段性变化。笔者认为老布什提出超越遏制战略是应对戈尔巴乔“和平攻势”的一种被动性反应，美国并没有为执行此战略做好充分准备，其超越遏制战略的实施实际上分为“试探”、“合作稳定欧洲”与“合作稳定苏联”三个阶段。笔者对这三个阶段进行了简要地论述，并指出老布什对苏遏制战略的本质是一种冷战胜利主义。笔者在第二章主要探讨了老布什对俄政策的主要动机、特点以及克林顿早期对俄政策的变化。老布什政府对俄政策继承了对苏政策保守和审慎的特点；他本人信奉政治现实主义，主要关注地区安全和力量均衡，而对俄罗斯国内的民主改革和经济援助显得并不热情。而克林顿信奉政治自由主义，认为美国介入和支援俄罗斯内部的政治和经济转型是可行、必要和紧迫的，且美俄的良好关系可以为美国集中力量恢复经济、推动军工转产创造良好环境。为此克林顿执行了“叶利钦第一”和“俄罗斯优先”政策。而这种政策趋向使得两国“蜜月”气氛更为浓厚。第三章主要探讨了美俄关系由“蜜月”到“摩擦”的演变过程以及克林顿对俄政策的两次调整与对俄定位的变化。克林顿政府提出《参与和扩展战略》表明美国进入战略扩张阶段，美国战略扩张的明确性与俄罗斯改革转型的不确定性形成鲜明的反差，并最终促使克林顿对俄政策的调整。这一时期克林顿的对俄政策主要通过改造俄外围战略环境和继续介入俄罗斯内政的方式实现。但克林顿政府对俄罗斯地缘政治利益的忽视和损害、支持叶利钦掌权的功利性、口惠而实不至的经济援助促使俄罗斯开始质疑美国的动机；这导致两国原本掩盖的利益冲突逐渐激发，两国关系也至此进入“摩擦期”。而美国国内对俄罗斯外交行为变化的不满以及怀疑俄罗斯转型“脱轨”的声音最终促成了克林顿对俄政策的进一步调整，并导致两国关系继续弱化。笔者将对此次美国国内辩论的焦点和深层次影响进行分析。第四章简要探讨了导致美俄关系弱化的深层原因和影响要素。笔者认为，冷战后美国的霸权护持和战略扩张倾向是限制两国关系发展的体系性因素；美国“救世主”心态和俄罗斯“大国情结”的冲突是促成两国关系摩擦的文化根源；美国在政策实践中“理想主义”言辞和“实用主义”选择的矛盾导致了俄罗斯怀疑美国对俄政策的真实动机；俄罗斯对美国国内政治过弱的影响能力、美国国内多层面的“恐俄力量”是阻碍两国关系深入发展的国内因素。论文的结语部分指出：美俄关系由“蜜月”到“摩擦”的主要责任者在美国，其理想主义包裹下的援俄行动并不能掩饰其从长远角度出发、限制和遏制俄罗斯崛起的深层动机。美国构建单极世界的战略诉求使其不能平等地对待俄罗斯，两国关系的下滑也就不可避免。
[Abstract]:After the Cold War , the United States and Russia have experienced a brief honeymoon period . During this period , the United States and Russia have declared that the two countries should build up " mature strategic partnerships " . In the process of policy analysis , the United States has begun to question whether the U.S . and the Western - specified market - oriented reform road conforms to Russia ' s national conditions and national interests . In March 1999 , the United States has begun to question whether the U.S . and the Western - specified market - oriented reform road conforms to Russia ' s national conditions and national interests .

This paper is divided into four chapters except introduction and conclusion .

The first chapter mainly analyzes the background , content and the stage change of the United States during the Bush period . The author thinks that the strategy is a kind of passive reaction to the " peace offensive " of Gorbajo . The author points out that the implementation of the strategy is divided into " probing " , " cooperative stability Europe " and " cooperative stability of the Soviet Union " .

In the second chapter , the author mainly discusses Bush ' s main motives , characteristics and changes in Russia ' s policy .
He himself believed in political realism , mainly focused on regional security and balance of forces , and was not enthusiastic about democratic reforms and economic assistance in Russia . Clinton believed in political liberalism that the U.S . intervention and support for Russia ' s internal political and economic transformation were feasible , necessary and urgent , and that the good relations between the United States and Russia could help the U.S . concentrate its efforts to restore the economy and promote the transfer of arms to create a good environment .

The third chapter mainly discusses the evolution of American - Russian relations from " honeymoon " to " friction " and the changes of Clinton ' s two adjustments to Russia ' s policy .
This led to the gradual increase in the conflicts of interest that the two countries had previously concealed , and the relationship between the two countries has entered the " friction period " . The U.S . ' s dissatisfaction with the changes in diplomatic behavior in Russia and the question of the Russian transformation of " derail " ultimately led to the further adjustment of the Russian policy and the continued weakening of the relations between the two countries . The author will analyze the focus and the deep influence of the domestic debate in the United States .

The fourth chapter briefly discusses the deep causes and the influencing factors that lead to the weakening of the relationship between US and Russia . The author believes that the tendency of hegemony and strategic expansion in the United States after the cold war is to limit the systemic factors of the development of bilateral relations ;
The conflict between the " Saviour " mentality and the " big country complex " in the United States is the cultural root cause of the friction between the two countries .
The contradictions between " idealism " and " pragmatism " in American policy practice have led to Russia ' s doubts about the real motives of the United States for Russia ' s policy ;
Russia ' s influence on the domestic politics of the United States and the multi - level " fear of Russia " in the United States are the domestic factors that hinder the deep development of bilateral relations .

The conclusion part of this paper points out that the relationship between Russia and Russia is the main responsible person of " honeymoon " to " friction " . In the United States , the Russian - Russian action under its idealism can not conceal its deep motivation to limit and contain Russia ' s rise from the long - term perspective . The strategic appeal of the United States to build a unipolar world makes it impossible to treat Russia equally , and the decline of bilateral relations is inevitable .

【学位授予单位】：中共中央党校
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D871.2

【参考文献】