乌克兰总统在达沃斯发出警告：欧洲尚未准备好保卫自身
作者：摩根·菲利普斯
来源：福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年1月26日 美国东部时间上午8:14
在瑞士达沃斯向全球领导人发表讲话时，乌克兰总统弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基（Volodymyr Zelenskyy）就欧洲的自卫能力发出了直言不讳的警告。
“欧洲需要知道如何自卫，”他表示，称欧洲大陆在没有美国支持的情况下，仍然没有准备好独立应对挑战。
泽连斯基的言论反映了欧洲日益增长的焦虑——数十年对美国保护的依赖，使欧洲在一个更加危险的时代准备不足。尽管欧洲国家从阿富汗到乌克兰的冲突中提供了军队、武器和资金，但北约安全的最终后盾仍然是华盛顿。
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）公开质疑这一假设，多次警告北约盟友，美国的保护不应被视为理所当然，并坚持美国需要从丹麦手中获得格陵兰岛。
在他排除了使用武力夺取该岛的可能性之前，欧洲官员曾担心西方列强之间的军事冲突会意味着北约的终结。
“也许我们应该考验一下北约：援引《北大西洋公约》第五条，迫使北约来这里保护我们的南部边境免受非法移民的进一步入侵，从而释放大量边境巡逻人员执行其他任务，”特朗普周四在Truth Social平台上表示。
特朗普暗示美国可能不会保卫未能投资自身安全的盟友，这动摇了联盟的根基，并促使欧洲政府承诺大幅增加国防开支。
即便如此，欧洲领导人仍承认美国实力对北约防御的核心作用。北约秘书长马克·吕特（Mark Rutte）指出，美国的核保护伞是联盟的“终极保障”，此外美国在欧洲的强大常规军事存在也起到了关键作用。
“我们在欧洲仍然拥有强大的常规军事存在，”吕特表示，“当然，核保护伞是我们的终极保障。”
安全分析师表示，这种长期存在的保障塑造了欧洲随时间推移的选择。
“在冷战后的大部分时期，可以说欧洲人在国防方面投资不足，部分原因是威胁较低，部分原因是多位美国总统竭尽全力让欧洲人相信我们会永远留在那里，”麻省理工学院政治学教授巴里·波森（Barry Posen）告诉福克斯新闻数字版。
“特朗普认为，随着形势变化——俄罗斯重新整合并变得更具要求和威胁，以及中国的实力增长——欧洲人迟迟未能加强自身军力，这一点是正确的，”波森表示。
但波森警告称，在北约内部制造分裂存在风险。
“特朗普面临的问题是，‘有条件的承诺’会使挑战更有可能发生，”他说，“然后我们仍然必须决定该怎么做。作为一个大国，在实际面临挑战时，我们可能不希望显得软弱。”
随着时间推移，这些选择带来了政治后果。由于美国力量作为后盾，国防开支比医疗、养老金和教育等受政治欢迎的国内补贴更容易受到限制，这些补贴在欧洲政治中根深蒂固。
随着国防需求上升，各国政府正面临这些限制。在意大利，官员警告称，为满足北约承诺而增加军事支出将加剧本已紧张的预算，养老金和社会福利占公共支出的很大一部分。
德国找到了一种拖延的方法。俄罗斯入侵乌克兰后，柏林设立了一个1000亿欧元的特别国防基金——通过新举债筹集资金，并置于常规预算之外——以在不立即削减其他开支的情况下重建其军队。这一举措启动了重新武装进程，同时保护了受欢迎的社会项目免受近期削减。
但该基金是临时性的。一旦资金耗尽，维持更高的国防开支将需要在围绕严格财政规则和广泛社会承诺构建的体系内做出永久性预算决定。
美国“担忧退伍军人组织”（Concerned Veterans for America）的约翰·伯恩（John Byrne）表示，欧洲对美国的依赖不仅体现在国防预算上。伯恩称，尽管欧洲政府承诺增加开支，但它们仍然缺乏在没有美国领导的情况下运行北约行动所需的高层经验。
“他们缺乏经验，”伯恩指出，大型多国军事指挥部几十年来几乎完全由美国将军领导这一事实。“这种体制知识几乎完全掌握在美国手中。”
伯恩表示，这种差距在危机中至关重要。他说，运行复杂的联军军事行动需要多年在最高级别进行实践，这一点即使增加开支也无法快速解决。
“你可以购买装备，”伯恩说，“但你无法立即购买指挥经验。”
在周四于瑞士达沃斯的演讲中，泽连斯基质疑如果对美国保护的假设发生变化，欧洲是否有能力和意愿独立行动。
“欧洲仍然更像是地理、历史、传统的集合，而不是一个真正的政治力量，不是一个大国，”泽连斯基表示。
他警告称，欧洲领导人继续基于可能不再成立的预期进行规划。
“相信美国会行动，相信它不会袖手旁观并提供帮助，”泽连斯基说，“但如果它不这么做呢？这个问题在欧洲领导人的脑海中无处不在。”
Trump’s NATO warning pushes Europe to face the cost of defending itself
Ukrainian president delivers warning at Davos that continent isn’t ready to defend itself
By Morgan Phillips
Fox News
Published January 26, 2026 8:14am EST
Speaking to global leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a blunt warning to Europe about its self-defense.
“Europe needs to know how to defend itself,” he said, arguing that the continent still isn’t ready to stand on its own without U.S. backing.
Zelensky’s remarks reflected a growing anxiety across Europe — that decades of reliance on American protection left the continent ill-prepared for a more dangerous era. While European countries have contributed troops, weapons and money to conflicts from Afghanistan to Ukraine, the ultimate backstop for NATO’s security has remained Washington.
President Donald Trump has openly challenged that assumption, repeatedly warning NATO allies that U.S. protection should not be taken for granted, and insisting the U.S. needed to take Greenland from Denmark.
Before he ruled out the use of force to wrest control of the island, European officials had worried about a military dust-up between Western powers would mean the end of NATO.
“Maybe we should have put NATO to the test: Invoked Article 5, and forced NATO to come here and protect our Southern Border from further Invasions of Illegal Immigrants, thus freeing up large numbers of Border Patrol Agents for other tasks,” Trump mused on Truth Social Thursday.
Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. may not defend allies that fail to invest in their own security rattled the alliance and pushed European governments to pledge sharp increases in defense spending.
Even so, European leaders continue to acknowledge how central U.S. power remains to NATO’s defense. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has pointed to the American nuclear umbrella as the alliance’s “ultimate guarantor,” alongside a strong U.S. conventional presence in Europe.
“We are still having a strong, conventional U.S. presence in Europe,” Rutte said, “and, of course, the nuclear umbrella as our ultimate guarantor.”
Security analysts say that long-standing guarantee shaped Europe’s choices over time.
“For much of the post–Cold War period, it is fair to say that Europeans underinvested in defense, partly because threats were low, and partly because a series of U.S. presidents did everything they could to convince Europeans that we would stay there forever,” Barry Posen, a professor of political science at MIT, told Fox News Digital.
“Trump was right to argue that Europeans have been slow to fix up their forces as the situation changed — as Russia pulled itself back together and became more demanding and threatening, and as China also grew its power,” Posen said.
But Posen warned that driving a wedge inside NATO carries risks.
“The problem Trump faces is that ‘conditional commitments’ make challenges more likely,” he said. “And then we would still have to decide what to do. As a great power, in the event of an actual challenge, we might not wish to look weak.”
Over time, those choices carried political consequences. With American power serving as the backstop, defense spending was easier to restrain than politically popular domestic subsidies such as healthcare, pensions and education, which became entrenched in European politics.
As defense demands rise, governments are running into those constraints. In Italy, officials have warned that boosting military spending to meet NATO commitments would strain an already tight budget, where pensions and social benefits account for a large share of public spending.
Germany found a way to buy time. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Berlin created a €100 billion special defense fund — financed through new borrowing and kept outside the regular budget — to rebuild its military without immediately cutting other spending. The move jump-started rearmament while shielding popular social programs from near-term cuts.
But the fund is temporary. Once it runs out, sustaining higher defense spending will require permanent budget decisions inside a system built around strict fiscal rules and expansive social commitments.
John Byrne of Concerned Veterans for America said Europe’s dependence on the United States runs deeper than defense budgets. Even as European governments pledge more spending, Byrne said they still lack the senior-level experience needed to run NATO operations without U.S. leadership.
“They don’t have the experience,” Byrne said, pointing to the fact that large, multinational military commands have overwhelmingly been led by American generals for decades. “That institutional knowledge still sits almost entirely with the United States.”
Byrne said that gap matters in a crisis. Running complex, coalition military operations requires years of practice at the highest levels, he said — something that cannot be fixed quickly, even with higher spending.
“You can buy equipment,” Byrne said. “You can’t instantly buy command experience.”
During his address at Davos, Switzerland, Thursday, Zelenskyy questioned whether Europe has the power or the will to act independently if assumptions about U.S. protection change.
“Europe still feels more like geography, history, tradition, not a real political force, not a great power,” Zelenskyy said.
He warned that European leaders continue to plan around expectations that may no longer hold.
“To believe that the United States will act, that it will not stand aside and will help,” Zelenskyy said. “But what if it doesn’t? This question is everywhere in the minds of European leaders.”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/volodymyr-zelenskyy.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/mark-rutte.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/nato-leaders.jpg
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6388104560112
