Name: 普丁應該拿到檯面上的東西，這已經比他應得的還多了！｜DW 新聞 ('Putin should take what's on the table. It's more than he should get' | DW News)
Uploaded: 2025-12-16T17:13:02.000Z
Duration: 12 min 18 s

Are we one step closer to peace in Ukraine?

我們離烏克蘭的和平更近一步了嗎？

情態副詞

Well, Berlin was at the center of potentially decisive diplomatic talks for two days when Ukrainian and US Negotiators came together to discuss how to potentially achieve peace.

嗯，在柏林，烏克蘭和美國談判代表為了討論如何達成和平，展開了為期兩天的關鍵外交談判。

分詞構句

Joined by many European leaders, we now have a list of security guarantees put pen to paper that are meant to reassure Ukraine that its partners and allies have its back in guaranteeing its security.

在許多歐洲領導人的參與下，我們現在有一份安全保障清單已經簽署，旨在向烏克蘭保證，其合作夥伴和盟友會支持它來保障安全。

But there are still some important sticking points that need to be resolved, particularly the question over territory where we see the two sides still very far apart.

但仍有一些關鍵難點需要解決，特別是領土問題，我們看到雙方在這方面仍然差距很大。

And we also don't know whether Russia's Vladimir Putin is going to be willing to even agree to any kind of peace deal.

而且我們也不知道俄羅斯的弗拉基米爾·普丁是否願意同意任何形式的和平協議。

And this has many people out there skeptical.

Now, to discuss the outcomes of these two days of diplomacy in Berlin, I spoke to Jurgen Hat.

現在，為了討論在柏林進行的這兩天外交的結果，我採訪了於爾根·哈特。

He is the foreign policy spokesperson person for the conservative CDU, CSU.

他是德國基督教民主聯盟、德國基督教社會聯盟的外交政策發言人。

Thank you for being here with me, Mr. Hat.

謝謝您接受我的採訪，哈特先生。

We've heard it from US President Donald Trump.

我們已經從美國總統唐納·川普那裡聽說了。

We've heard it from German Chancellor Friedrich Metz.

我們也聽德國總理弗里德里希·梅茨說了。

We seem to be at the closest point to possibly reaching a peace for Ukraine since Russia's invasion there started.

自從俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭以來，我們似乎來到了最接近達成和平的時刻。

Looking back four weeks ago, I would not imagine that we have such a result today on the table where United States of America, Ukraine and European states, NATO member states and European Union member states are staying so close together on that question.

回顧四周前，我無法想像今天桌上會有這樣的結果，美國、烏克蘭、歐洲各國、北約成員國和歐盟成員國在那個問題上如此緊密地站在一起。

And the message to Putin is this is a common position of the, so to say, Western world together with Ukraine.

這傳達給普丁的訊息是，這是一個所謂的西方世界與烏克蘭共同的立場。

Please decide to accept, because something better you will not have on the table.

請決定接受，因為您不會有更好的選擇。

And hopefully the US President is also mentioning this position to Moscow.

希望美國總統也能向莫斯科傳達這個立場。

The decision now needs to be taken in Moscow, but

the preparation was very well and a big success, by the way, also for the German Chancellor, Friedrich Matzo.

順帶一提，這次的準備非常充分，對德國總理弗里德里希·梅茨來說也是一個大成功。

So you're optimistic that this is a first step towards an actual peace agreement.

所以您對此感到樂觀，認為這是邁向實際和平協議的第一步。

An actual peace agreement needs the support also from Putin.

實際的和平協議需要普丁的支持。

What we saw in the past was that he didn't want to go only 1 millimeter into the direction of Ukraine or the Western world.

我們過去看到的是，他一點都不想往烏克蘭或西方世界的方向前進一毫米。

He felt encouraged by the behavior of the US President, who was irritating its partners in the Western world and in Ukraine.

美國總統的行為讓他感到鼓舞，因為他惹惱了西方世界和烏克蘭的夥伴。

But we said what we saw yesterday, inclusive the video conference with the US President and the others around 10 heads of state and the chancellor, German Chancery I am optimistic that we now have a common position that is durable and that Putin thinks about that probably if he will not agree on the Western world would increase military support for Ukraine, which makes it more difficult for Putin to reach its military goals.

但我們說，昨天我們看到的，包括美國總統和其他大約十位國家元首與總理的視訊會議，德國總理，我樂觀地認為我們現在有一個持久的共同立場，而普丁可能會考慮，如果他不同意，西方世界將會增加對烏克蘭的軍事支援，這會讓普丁更難達成他的軍事目標。

And therefore he should now take what is on the TABLE it's more than he should get.

是以，他現在應該接受桌上的條件，這已經比他應得的還多了。

But to have peace for the people in Ukraine, I think we can, we can accept such a result.

但為了烏克蘭人民的和平，我認為我們可以接受這樣的結果。

We've seen a statement put out by European leaders with a list of security guarantees that Europeans and the US are willing to offer Ukraine.

我們看到歐洲領導人發表聲明，列出歐洲和美國願意提供給烏克蘭的安全保障。

That includes a European led multinational force which would include troops being on the ground in Ukraine after a peace is achieved.

這包括一支由歐洲主導的多國部隊，在達成和平後，部隊將駐紮在烏克蘭境內。

Do you really see European troops going to Ukraine?

您真的認為歐洲部隊會進入烏克蘭嗎？

What we need is first a ceasefire, then we need an agreement on the border question where Ukraine itself has to take the final decisions on that.

我們首先需要的是停火，然後我們需要就邊界問題達成協議，這需要烏克蘭自己做出最終決定。

And then we have the security measures around.

然後我們還有周邊的安全措施。

And I think Germany will not stand away, not go away if there our support is needed for us Europeans.

我認為德國不會袖手旁觀，如果歐洲人需要我們的支持，我們也不會退縮。

It's important that us are also in on that concept.

We need us especially also concern concerning intelligence which the US has capabilities and that intelligence we don't have in Europe.

我們特別需要關注美國擁有的情報能力，這是歐洲沒有的。

Therefore it's necessary to have a American support for that, so to say peace troop.

是以，可以說，需要有美國的支持來組建這支和平部隊。

But at the end, 800,000 Ukrainian soldiers are the best guarantee for freedom and independent of Ukraine.

但最終，80萬烏克蘭阿兵哥是烏克蘭自由和獨立的最佳保障。

And 800,000 is more than most of the NATO in Europe has.

80萬阿兵哥比歐洲大多數北約國家擁有的兵力還多。

We haven't yet heard a resounding yes coming from Germany in terms of taking part in this multinational force and for German troops to actually be on the ground in Ukraine to guarantee peace and security.

我們還沒聽到德國明確表示願意參與這支多國部隊，讓德軍實際駐紮在烏克蘭以保障和平與安全。

I think that the cdc, Bundestag and also the Bundestag as a whole tomorrow when the Chancellor gives his government statement on the European Union summit, upcoming European Union summit, there will be a broad support for that plan.

我認為，在總理就即將舉行的歐盟峰會發表政府聲明時，基民盟、基社盟以及整個聯邦議院都會廣泛支持這項計畫。

And part of that plan is this question of security guarantees for Ukraine and Germany will not stand against that.

而這項計畫的一部分就是烏克蘭的安全保障問題，德國不會反對。

But on the other hand, if there is no peace, we also will have no measures to secure the peace.

但另一方面，如果沒有和平，我們也沒有任何措施來保障和平。

And therefore the first step is now to convince Russia and the Russian President to support.

是以，第一步是說服俄羅斯和俄羅斯總統支持。

We've also seen in the statement by European leaders that they have pointed down a legally binding commitment to restore peace and security if Ukraine were to be attacked again after a peace agreement.

我們也看到歐洲領導人的聲明，他們指出瞭如果烏克蘭在和平協議後再次遭到攻擊，將有法律約束力的承諾來恢復和平與安全。

Do you see this legally binding element coming to fruition, especially in a country like the United States?

您認為這個具有法律約束力的部分會實現嗎？尤其是在像美國這樣的國家？

I think what is on the table now is something close to Article 5 obligations in NATO.

我認為現在擺在檯面上的，已經接近北約第五條的義務了。

But we have to state if Russia will not keep peace in Ukraine and will only formally accept the plan and not in reality, the war will go on and therefore we then will support Ukraine as strong as it needed.

但我們必須說明，如果俄羅斯不維持烏克蘭的和平，只是形式上接受計畫而非實際執行，戰爭就會繼續，是以我們將盡力支持烏克蘭。

And I hope that European Union finds a decision on Thursday to mobilize the frozen assets of Russia to make sure that Ukraine has enough money to finance its military force forces in 26 and also in 27.

我希望歐盟能在週四做出決定，動用被凍結的俄羅斯資產，確保烏克蘭有足夠的資金來資助其在26年和27年的軍事力量。

And this signal from Brussels is also very necessary now because it helps a lot to strengthen the position of the Western world towards Putin.

來自布魯塞爾的這項訊號現在也非常有必要，因為它大大有助於加強西方世界對普丁的立場。

Do you think the US and in particular the President Donald Trump, will stick to what was agreed here in Berlin, or we've seen it happen before, Will he flip flop and change his mind?

您認為美國，特別是總統唐納·川普，會遵守在柏林這裡達成的協議嗎？還是我們以前也見過，他會變來變去，改變主意？

We had the speech of Vice President Wernz in February in Munich.

我們在二月於慕尼黑聽取了副總統 Wernz 的演講。

We had the national security strategy on the table and we have the 28 bullet point paper four weeks ago, which was irritating.

我們看到了國家安全戰略，以及四周前提出的 28 點計畫，這令人惱火。

But I have no doubt that we can trust the US President.

但我毫不懷疑我們可以信任美國總統。

What he said yesterday to the heads of state in the chancery via video, and

他昨天透過視訊向國務院的國家元首們所說的話，

Witkov and Kushner, his two ambassadors on that question, they are also strongly committed to that plan.

以及 Witkov 和 Kushner，他關於這個問題的兩位大使，他們也強烈支持這項計畫。

And therefore I'm optimistic that the alliance between us, Ukraine and the European states is sustainable and also a strong word to Putin.

是以，我對我們、烏克蘭和歐洲國家之間的聯盟是可持續的，並且也是對普丁的強硬表態感到樂觀。

One big question that remains open, you've mentioned it on Ukraine is the territorial issue.

一個仍然懸而未決的大問題，您已經提到了，關於烏克蘭，那就是領土問題。

You've said this is up to Ukraine to decide, but

您說這取決於烏克蘭自己決定，但是

we've heard that also in these talks there might still be pressure coming from the US for Ukraine to give up territory that it holds in Donetsk, something that Ukraine absolutely does not want to do.

我們聽說，在這些談判中，美國可能仍在施壓，要求烏克蘭放棄其在頓內茨克佔領的領土，而這是烏克蘭絕對不願意的。

Do you think this whole process could come crashing because of this territorial issue not being resolved?

您認為整個過程會因為這個領土問題未能解決而崩潰嗎？

This is one of the most crucial points not decided in the paper from yesterday evening, because we are convinced that only Ukraine, Ukrainian President and Ukrainian parliament can take such a decision.

這也是昨天晚上的文件裡，最關鍵的未決定事項之一，因為我們相信只有烏克蘭、烏克蘭總統和烏克蘭國會能做出這樣的決定。

By the way, also the constitution of Ukraine makes it necessary that Sarada is agreeing on that.

順帶一提，烏克蘭的憲法也規定薩拉達必須同意。

And it would be a pity if Putin reaches some more territory in Ukraine than he has reached by military activity.

如果普丁在烏克蘭佔領比軍事行動更多領土，那就太可惜了。

In 25, Putin only conquered 4,500 square kilometers extra compared to 24.

在25號，普丁額外只佔領了4,500平方公里，相較於24號。

This is only 0.77% of the territory of Ukraine.

And he lost 250,000 soldiers wounded or dead.

而且他損失了25萬名阿兵哥，不是傷就是亡。

And therefore it's also for him a question now to jump into a solution which is face saving also for him towards his people in Russia and not to, to continue the war.

是以，對他來說，現在也是個問題，要找到一個對他的人民來說也能保住面子的解決方案，而不是繼續戰爭。

But therefore I see also possibilities for compromises on the Russian side on their territorial question.

但是以，我認為在俄羅斯方面，他們的領土問題也有妥協的可能性。

And by the way, the question is not to give up territory on a, on a, on a basis of international law.

順帶一提，這不是要在國際法的基礎上放棄領土。

The question is who controls some parts of the Ukraine in the future.

問題在於未來烏克蘭的哪些部分將由誰控制。

Is it the Ukrainian government or is it something in between?

是烏克蘭政府，還是介於兩者之間？

So do you think that Russia would be willing to agree to a peace or do you think, like other observers see it, that Putin just wants to continue the war and that any effort to achieve peace are not going to end up anywhere?

那麼，你認為俄羅斯會願意達成和平協議嗎？還是你認為，就像其他觀察家所說的，普丁只想繼續戰爭，任何和平努力都將徒勞無功？

I fear that there's a huge a risk that Putin will not accept.

But on the other hand, for us in the west side world, it's clear that in case that the Putin does not agree on that plan, we come to a point where we have a more common position on supporting Ukraine also in the future, hopefully also with us.

但另一方面，對我們西方世界來說，很清楚的是，如果普丁不同意這項計畫，我們將會達到一個共同立場，未來也會繼續支持烏克蘭，希望我們也能參與其中。

And this is a change compared to that, what we had some weeks ago.

And one point we've heard Chancellor Friedrich Metz recently say that he believes the era of Pax Americana is over, that the US Guaranteeing security also for its partners in Europe, that is over, and

另外，我們最近聽到德國總理弗里德里希·梅茨說，他認為「美國治下的和平」時代已經結束，美國不再為歐洲夥伴提供安全保障，

that Europe really now needs to take it all in its own hands.

歐洲現在真的需要自己承擔一切。

How do you view this message coming from the Chancellor?

你怎麼看德國總理傳達的這番訊息？

Is it really a moment of reaching awareness for European countries that they have to take care of things on their own?

歐洲國家是不是真的意識到，必須自己處理事情了？

We have to be aware that this might be the case.

我們必須意識到，情況可能就是這樣。

But looking to the strategy of the US President, especially the nuclear question, the nuclear umbrella for allies is mentioned there.

但看看美國總統的策略，特別是核武問題，那裡提到了對盟友的核保護傘。

Maybe we'll have discussions about who pays for it, who is organizing it.

也許我們會討論誰來付錢，誰來組織。

But I didn't see a fundamental shift away from NATO by us.

但我沒看到我們從北約（NATO）有根本性的轉變。

And we should not lift the bridge from our side.

And therefore I'm convinced it makes sense to try to keep the NATO close together in conventional, but

是以，我確信，在常規軍事方面，同時

還有核嚇阻方面，讓北約（NATO）緊密團結是有意義的。

Jurgen Hart, thank you very much for speaking to us.

於爾根·哈特，非常感謝你接受我們的訪問。