【中美创新时报2025 年 3 月1 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）周五，特朗普总统和副总统万斯在激烈的椭圆形办公室会议上称乌克兰总统泽连斯基“无礼”。《波士顿环球报》记者詹姆斯·平德尔对此作了下述报道。
周五，特朗普总统和乌克兰总统泽连斯基在椭圆形办公室的会晤本应是一个简单的形式。
一项涉及美国帮助乌克兰开发原材料的协议已经进展到这一步，终于到了泽连斯基和特朗普握手的时候了。
但发生了一些不同的事情。
在 10 分钟的时间里，特朗普、泽连斯基和副总统 JD 万斯重提了过去 11 年俄罗斯对乌克兰的侵略以及谁在何时做了什么。似乎没有人高兴。在将一群震惊的记者赶出白宫并取消了原定的双边新闻发布会后，特朗普实际上将泽连斯基赶出了白宫。
虽然不会达成任何协议，但这不仅仅是两国谈判的破裂。如果未来的总统选择接受其前提，这次破裂将为一个全新的世界秩序奠定基础。当然，他们也可以朝着不同的方向发展。
第二次世界大战后，全球秩序很明确。有两个大国、两个队伍，几乎每件事都是从哪一方受益或哪一方付出代价的角度来看待的。
然后苏联解体，美国成为世界唯一的超级大国。这种转变在 1991 年的海湾战争中显而易见，当时乔治·H·W·布什总统能够建立一个广泛的国际联盟来对抗一个孤立的小反对派。后冷战框架在克林顿执政期间一直延续，影响了全球化，塑造了美国对 9/11 事件的反应、奥巴马的“幕后领导”外交政策（当时仍是一个全球联盟），甚至影响了三年前俄罗斯入侵乌克兰时的反应。
国际社会对这场战争的早期反应分为三大阵营。起初，俄罗斯被孤立，受到发达国家的制裁，这些国家也为乌克兰提供支持。最终，俄罗斯找到了盟友：中国给它钱，伊朗给它无人机，朝鲜给它军队。与此同时，全球大部分南方国家保持中立，完全置身事外。
但周五的椭圆形办公室会议可能正式确定了自特朗普 11 月连任以来一直在酝酿的事情：新殖民主义的新时代，少数强国决定全球事务。
特朗普的世界观表明，只有少数几个国家才有资格在影响其他所有人的决策中占有一席之地。 （尽管去年在竞选中，特朗普曾发誓要与普京和泽连斯基进行 24 小时的快速谈判。）这些国家拥有最大的经济和军事实力，以及最多的原材料。这就解释了为什么他愿意直接与俄罗斯谈判，而将乌克兰排除在外，他认为乌克兰只是一个小角色。这也解释了为什么他渴望干预以色列——因为在他看来，决定结果是一个大国所做的。
这种交易性的、现实政治驱动的方法意味着俄罗斯可以在任何即将达成的交易中夺取乌克兰的部分领土，美国应该有权从较小的丹麦手中收购格陵兰岛，台湾的命运仍是一个悬而未决的问题。顺便说一句，欧洲正在收到信息，并加强自己的联盟，以确立自己在这个体系中的地位。
这与拜登总统的愿景截然不同。拜登仍然在二战后的框架下运作——将世界分为民主国家和独裁国家，美国引领民主。他在联合国大会上也说过同样的话。
特朗普在椭圆形办公室的表现迅速招致批评。塞勒姆众议员塞思·莫尔顿称其“令人尴尬”，呼应了几乎所有民主党人的反应——可能还有一些共和党人，尽管大多数人很难在公开场合承认这一点。
可以肯定的是，在椭圆形办公室发生的事情在电视时代是史无前例的。目睹这一切令人震惊。但在这种震惊中可能隐藏着一个新世界秩序的现实——这个秩序正在形成，并可能决定未来几十年的全球政治。
题图：周五，特朗普总统和副总统万斯在激烈的椭圆形办公室会议上称乌克兰总统泽连斯基“无礼”。
The Oval Office dispute between Trump and Zelensky wasn’t just about Ukraine. It created a new world order.
By James Pindell Globe Staff,Updated February 28, 2025
President Trump and VP Vance call Ukraine President Zelensky ‘disrespectful’ during heated Oval Office meeting on Friday.
Friday’s Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was supposed to be a simple formality for the cameras.
A deal involving the United States helping to develop raw materials in Ukraine was already so far along that it was finally time for Zelensky and Trump to shake hands.
But something different happened.
Over the course of 10 minutes, Trump, Zelensky, and Vice President JD Vance rehashed the past 11 years of Russian aggression in Ukraine and who did what and when. No one seemed happy. After shooing the gaggle of shocked reporters out of the Oval and canceling a planned bilateral press conference, Trump effectively kicked Zelensky out of the White House.
There would be no deal, but this was more than a breakdown in talks between the two countries. The blow-up set the stage for an entirely new world order, should future presidents choose to accept its premise. Or they could, of course, go in a different direction.
Following World War II, the global order was clear. There were two major powers, two teams, and nearly every event was viewed through the lens of which side it benefited or which it cost.
Then the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the United States as the world’s sole superpower. This shift was evident in the Gulf War of 1991, when President George H.W. Bush was able to build a broad international coalition against a small, isolated opposition. That post-Cold War framework continued through the Clinton years, influenced globalization, shaped the US response to 9/11, Obama’s “lead from behind” foreign policy (which was still a global coalition), and even framed the reaction when Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago.
The early international response to that war fell into three broad camps. At first, Russia was isolated, sanctioned by developed nations that also provided support to Ukraine. Eventually, Russia found allies: China gave it money, Iran gave it drones, and North Korea gave it troops. Meanwhile, much of the Global South remained neutral, sitting out the conflict altogether.
But the Oval Office meeting Friday may have formalized something that has been brewing since Trump’s reelection in November: a new era of neocolonialism, where a handful of powerful nations dictate global affairs.
Trump’s worldview suggests that only a select few countries deserve a seat at the table when making decisions that impact everyone else. (Though on the campaign trail last year Trump vowed to put both Putin and Zelensky in a quick 24-hour negotiation.) It’s those countries with the biggest economies and militaries, and with the most raw materials. This explains why he is willing to negotiate directly with Russia while sidelining Ukraine, which he views as a minor player. It also clarifies why he is eager to intervene in Israel — because, in his view, dictating outcomes is what a great power does.
This transactional, realpolitik-driven approach means Russia could take parts of Ukraine in any upcoming deal, the US should have the right to acquire Greenland from a lesser Denmark, and the fate of Taiwan remains an open question. Europe, by the way, is getting the message and bolstering up its own alliances to assert itself as a player in this system.
This is a stark departure from President Biden’s vision. Biden still operated under a post-WWII framework — one that divided the world into democracies and autocracies, with America leading the charge for democracy. He said as much at every United Nations general assembly.
Trump’s performance in the Oval Office drew swift criticism. Representative Seth Moulton of Salem called it “embarrassing,” echoing the reaction of nearly every Democrat — and likely some Republicans, though most would be hard-pressed to admit it in public.
To be sure, what happened in the Oval Office was unprecedented in the television age. It was shocking to witness. But within that shock may lie the reality of a new world order — one that is now taking shape and could define global politics for decades to come.
