累積相罵本 20210712 〈論俄羅斯與烏克蘭一體的歷史〉普丁 / Taimocracy翻譯

【縛雞之論】

許多人一直認為俄羅斯會進攻烏克蘭，實際上俄羅斯的行為更接近於革命外交。
本文是賴怡忠文章（他堅持會大，卻也有論述矛盾）中提到的，於是抓來翻譯。閱讀過之後，才知道普丁在想什麼。
學者說：從表面上來說，文章寫得不錯，但酸腐味和習近平的中華民族的偉大復興一個樣。
文章從歷史宗教語言到政治經濟，來回洗了兩次，很有力。不細究不一一反駁，根本抓不出錯處。但畢竟，這區域的歷史，我們台灣人實在不熟。
普丁約略是想回復1922蘇聯前的俄羅斯版圖—普丁認為是俄羅斯應得的，特別是克里米亞。
他的理由（在文章中段）是

1.  蘇聯成立時，克里米亞屬於蘇俄，不是蘇烏
2.  克里米亞被劃歸烏克蘭，是1954的赫魯雪夫
3.  赫魯雪夫、布里茲涅夫，是烏克蘭人
4.  蘇聯崩解，烏克蘭沒有簽署1993年CIS憲章
5.  所以，烏克蘭的領土理應回復蘇聯成立時的前狀：克里米亞屬於俄羅斯

普丁文的章思路很亂。一方面說俄羅斯、白羅斯、烏克蘭，三者是大俄羅斯的核心組成單位，俄羅斯是不願見到烏克蘭離開。一方面又說烏克蘭與俄羅斯的關係，應以美加、德奧為典範。

 

”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
Vladimir Putin
July 12, 2021

〈論俄羅斯與烏克蘭一體的歷史〉
Taimocracy翻譯

 

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today's situation.  在最近的直通電話上，當我被問及俄烏關係時，我說，俄羅斯人和烏克蘭人是一個民族—一個單一的整體。這些話並不是出於一些短期的考慮，也不是由當前的政治背景所促使的。這是我在許多場合說過的，也是我堅信的。因此，我覺得有必要詳細解釋我的立場，並分享我對今天局勢的評估。

 

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.  首先，我想強調的是，近年來在俄羅斯和烏克蘭，在本質上是相同的歷史和精神空間的部分之間出現隔牆，在我看來是我們共同的巨大不幸和悲劇。這些首先是我們自己在不同時期所犯錯誤的後果。但這些也是那些一直試圖破壞我們團結的勢力故意為之的結果。他們應用的公式自古以來就很有名—分而治之。這裡沒有什麼新東西。因此，他們試圖利用「民族問題」，在人們之間挑撥離間，其首要目標是分化，然後讓一個民族的各個部分互相對立。

 

To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.  為了進一步瞭解現在和展望未來，我們需要翻開歷史。當然，在這篇文章中不可能涵蓋一千多年來發生的所有發展。但我將重點介紹在俄羅斯和烏克蘭，對我們來說都是重要的關鍵時刻。

 

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.  俄羅斯人、烏克蘭人和白斯人都是古羅斯（Ancient Rus）的後裔，古羅斯是歐洲最大的國家。從拉多加（Ladoga）、諾夫哥羅德（Novgorod）和普斯科夫（Pskov）到基輔（Kiev）和切爾尼戈夫（Chernigov），廣大領土上的斯拉夫部落和其他部落被一種語言（我們現在稱之為古俄語）、經濟聯繫、露黎克王朝（Rurik dynasty）的王侯們的統治以及—在羅斯的洗禮之後—東正教信仰聯繫在一起。聖弗拉基米爾（St. Vladimir）既是諾夫哥羅德的王侯又是基輔的大王侯，他的精神選擇在很大程度上仍然決定了我們今天的親近度。

 

The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, ”Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“  基輔的王權在古代羅斯中佔據了主導地位。這是自9世紀末以來的慣例。〈逝去的歲月〉為後人記下了先知奧列格（Oleg the Prophet）關於基輔的話：「讓它成為所有俄羅斯城市的母親」。

 

Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.  之後，像當時其他歐洲國家一樣，古羅斯面臨著中央統治的衰落和分裂。同時，貴族和平民都認為羅斯是一個共同的領土，是他們的祖國。

 

The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan's devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which – most significantly – was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.  巴圖汗（Batu Khan）的破壞性入侵，蹂躪了包括基輔在內的許多城市，此後分裂現象愈演愈烈。羅斯的東北部雖落入金帳汗國（Golden Horde）的控制之下，仍保留了有限的主權。南部和西部的俄羅斯土地基本上成為立陶宛大公國（Grand Duchy of Lithuania）的一部分，最重要的是，它在歷史記錄中被稱為立陶宛和俄羅斯大公國（the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia）。

 

Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas – Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk – fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila – son of the Princess of Tver – led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.  貴族集團（”boyar“ clans）的成員會從一個王侯轉到另一個王侯，相互爭鬥但也建立友誼和聯盟。沃倫（Volyn）的Voivode Bobrok和立陶宛大公阿爾吉達斯（Algirdas）之子—波羅次克（Polotsk）的安德列（Andrey）和布里安斯克（Bryansk）的狄米崔（Dmitry）—在庫里可夫（Kulikovo）戰場上與莫斯科大公Dmitry Ivanovich作戰。同時，立陶宛大公喬蓋拉（Jogaila）—特維爾公主（Princess of Tver）的兒子—率領他的部隊與馬邁（Mamai）會合。這些都是我們共同歷史的一頁，反映了它的複雜性和多面性。

 

Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.  最重要的是，俄羅斯西部和東部土地上的人們都講同一種語言。他們的信仰是東正教。直到15世紀中期，統一的教會政府仍然存在。

 

At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. It so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes – the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky – cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands. 在歷史發展的新階段，立陶宛羅斯和莫斯科羅斯都可以成為古羅斯領土的吸引點和鞏固點。碰巧的是，莫斯科成為了統一的中心，延續了古俄羅斯的立國傳統。莫斯科的王侯們—亞歷山大-涅夫斯基王侯（Prince Alexander Nevsky）的後代—擺脫了外國的枷鎖，開始整合俄羅斯的土地。

 

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. In the 14th century, Lithuania's ruling elite converted to Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.  在立陶宛大公國，其他進程正在展開。14世紀，立陶宛的統治精英們皈依了天主教。16世紀，它與波蘭王國簽署了《盧布林聯盟》（Union of Lublin），形成波蘭-立陶宛聯邦（Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth）。波蘭的天主教貴族在羅斯的領土上獲得了相當多的土地和特權。根據1596年的《布列斯特聯盟》（1596 Union of Brest），俄羅斯西部的部分東正教神職人員服從於教皇的權威。波蘭化和拉丁化的進程開始了，驅逐了東正教。

 

As a consequence, in the 16–17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.  因此，在16-17世紀，東正教居民的解放運動在第聶伯河地區逐漸強大起來。Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky時代的事件成為一個轉捩點。他的支持者們為脫離波蘭-立陶宛聯邦的自治權而鬥爭。

 

In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.  在1649年向波蘭-立陶宛聯邦國王發出的呼籲中，紮波羅熱公爵（Zaporizhian Host）要求尊重俄羅斯東正教居民的權利，基輔省長應是俄羅斯人和希臘人的信仰，並要求停止對上帝教會的迫害。但哥薩克人（Cossacks）的聲音沒有被聽到。

 

Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. In January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.  博丹-赫梅利尼茨基（Bohdan Khmelnytsky）隨後向莫斯科發出呼籲，並由澤姆斯基蘇博爾（Zemsky Sobor）審議。1653年10月1日，俄羅斯國家最高代表機構的成員決定支援他們的信仰兄弟，並將他們納入贊助範圍。1654年1月，佩雷亞斯拉夫委員會（Pereyaslav Council）確認了這一決定。隨後，博丹-赫梅利尼茨基和莫斯科的大使訪問了包括基輔在內的數十個城市，這些城市的居民都宣誓效忠於俄羅斯沙皇。順便說一句，在締結盧布林聯盟時並沒有發生類似的情況。

 

In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking ”the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. It means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.  在1654年給莫斯科的信中，博丹-赫梅利尼茨基感謝沙皇阿列克謝-米哈伊洛維奇（Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich）將「整個紮波羅熱公爵（Zaporizhian Host）和整個俄羅斯東正教世界置於沙皇強有力的高位之下」。這意味著，在向波蘭國王和俄羅斯沙皇的呼籲中，哥薩克人將自己稱為並定義為俄羅斯東正教人民。

 

Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would ”detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).  在俄羅斯國家與波蘭-立陶宛聯邦之間曠日持久的戰爭過程中，博丹-赫梅利尼茨基的一些繼承人赫曼人（hetmans）將「脫離」莫斯科，或從瑞典、波蘭或土耳其尋求支持。但是，對人民來說，這又是一場解放戰爭。它以1667年的安德魯索沃休戰（Truce of Andrusovo）而結束。最後的結果是由1686年的《永久和平條約》確認。俄羅斯國家合併了基輔市和第聶伯河（Dnieper River）左岸的土地，包括波爾塔瓦（Poltava）地區、切爾尼戈夫（Chernigov）地區和紮波羅熱。他們的居民與俄羅斯東正教的主要部分重新結合在一起。這些領土被稱為「小俄羅斯」（Malorossia）。

 

The name ”Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word ”Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.  「烏克蘭」這個名字更多的是用在古俄語單詞「週邊」（okraina）的意思上，這在12世紀的書面資料中可以找到，指的是各種邊境領土。而從檔案文獻來看，「烏克蘭」一詞最初指的是保護外部邊界的邊防軍。

 

On the right bank, which remained under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.  在仍然屬於波蘭-立陶宛聯邦的右岸，舊的秩序得到恢復，社會和宗教壓迫加劇。相反，在統一國家的保護下，左岸的土地得到了快速發展。來自第聶伯河對岸的人們大規模地遷移到這裡。他們從講相同語言和有相同信仰的人那裡尋求支持。

 

During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa's rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.  在與瑞典的大北方戰爭（Great Northern War）中，馬婁羅西亞（Malorossia）的人民並沒有面臨選擇站在誰一邊的問題。只有一小部分哥薩克人支援馬澤帕的叛亂（Mazepa's rebellion）。各種階級和程度的人都認為自己是俄羅斯人和東正教徒。

 

Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate – an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure – and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country – its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.  屬於貴族的哥薩克高級軍官將在俄羅斯達到政治、外交和軍事事業的高度。基輔莫赫拉學院（Kiev-Mohyla Academy）的畢業生在教會生活中發揮了主導作用。在赫特曼帝國（Hetmanate）時期—一個具有特殊內部結構的基本自治的國家建制—以及後來的俄羅斯帝國時期，情況也是如此。馬魯西亞人（Malorussians）在許多方面幫助建立一個大的共同國家—它的國家地位、文化和科學。他們參與了烏拉爾、西伯利亞、高加索和遠東地區的探索和開發。順便提一下，在蘇聯時期，烏克蘭本地人在統一國家的領導層中擔任了主要職務，包括最高職務。只需說，尼基塔-赫魯雪夫（Nikita Khrushchev）和列昂尼德-布里茲涅夫（Leonid Brezhnev），其政黨傳記與烏克蘭關係最密切）領導蘇聯共產黨（CPSU）近30年。

 

In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian – and later Austro-Hungarian – Empire.  18世紀下半葉，在與奧斯曼帝國的戰爭後，俄羅斯將克里米亞和黑海地區的土地併入，這些地方被稱為新羅西斯（Novorossiya）。這些地方的居民來自俄羅斯所有省份。在波蘭-立陶宛聯邦分治後，俄羅斯帝國重新獲得了西部的舊俄羅斯土地，但加利西亞（Galicia ）和外喀爾巴阡（Transcarpathia）除外，它們成為奧地利—後來的奧匈帝國的一部分。

 

The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.  將俄羅斯西部的土地納入單一國家，不僅僅是政治和外交決定的結果。它的基礎是共同的信仰、共同的文化傳統，以及—我想再次強調的是—語言的相似性。因此，早在17世紀初，聯合教會（Uniate Church）的一位主教約瑟夫-魯茨基（Joseph Rutsky）就向羅馬表示，莫斯科的人們稱來自波蘭-立陶宛聯邦的俄羅斯人為兄弟，他們的書面語言絕對相同，而白話的差異則微不足道。他用羅馬和貝加莫（Bergamo）的居民做了一個比喻。如我們所知，這些地方是現代義大利的中心和北部。

 

Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it?  許多世紀以來的分裂和在不同國家的生活自然帶來了地區語言的特殊性，導致了方言的出現。方言豐富了文學語言的內容。伊萬-科特利亞列夫斯基（Ivan Kotlyarevsky）、格裡高利-斯科沃羅達（Grigory Skovoroda）和塔拉斯-舍甫琴科（Taras Shevchenko ）在這裡發揮了巨大作用。他們的作品是我們共同的文學和文化遺產。塔拉斯-舍甫琴科用烏克蘭語寫詩，散文主要用俄語。俄羅斯愛國者、Poltavshchyna人尼古拉-果戈理（Nikolay Gogol）的書是用俄語寫的，充斥著馬魯西亞（Malorussian）的民間諺語和主題。這種遺產怎麼能在俄羅斯和烏克蘭之間分割？又為什麼要這樣做？

 

The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.  俄羅斯帝國的西南部土地、Malorussia和Novorossiya以及克里米亞發展為種族和宗教多樣化的實體。克里米亞韃靼人、亞美尼亞人、希臘人、猶太人、卡拉特人、克里姆查克人（Krymchaks）、保加利亞人、波蘭人、塞爾維亞人、德國人和其他民族在這裡生活。他們都保留了自己的信仰、傳統和習俗。

 

I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the ”Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.  我不打算把任何事情理想化。我們確實知道有1863年的Valuev通告，然後是1876年的Ems Ukaz，它限制了烏克蘭語的宗教和社會政治文獻的出版和進口。但重要的是要注意到歷史背景。這些決定是在波蘭的戲劇性事件和波蘭民族運動領導人希望利用「烏克蘭問題」（Ukrainian issue）為自己服務的背景下做出的。我應該補充一點，小說作品、烏克蘭詩歌和民歌書籍繼續出版。有客觀證據表明，俄羅斯帝國見證了大俄羅斯民族（greater Russian nation）中馬魯西亞文化特性的積極發展過程，它將大俄羅斯人（Velikorussians）、馬魯西亞人和白羅斯人聯合起來。

 

At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis – and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such ”hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.  同時，烏克蘭人作為一個獨立於俄羅斯人的民族的想法開始形成，並在波蘭精英和部分馬魯西亞知識份子中獲得支持。由於沒有歷史依據—也不可能有任何歷史依據，所以結論被各種編造所證實，甚至聲稱烏克蘭人是真正的斯拉夫人，而俄羅斯人、莫斯科人不是。這種「假說」越來越多地被用於政治目的，成為歐洲國家之間競爭的工具。

 

Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War I, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.  自19世紀末以來，奧匈帝國當局就抓住了這一說法，將其作為對波蘭民族運動和加利西亞親穆斯科夫情緒（pro-Muscovite sentiments）的一種制衡。在第一次世界大戰期間，維也納在組建所謂的烏克蘭斯奇步兵軍團（Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen）中發揮了作用。被懷疑同情東正教和俄羅斯的加利西亞人受到了殘酷的鎮壓，並被扔進了塔勒霍夫（Thalerhof）和特雷津（Terezin）的集中營。

 

Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.  進一步的發展與歐洲帝國的崩潰有關，在前俄羅斯帝國的廣大領土上爆發了激烈的內戰，以及外國干預。

 

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.  二月革命後，1917年3月，中央拉達（Central Rada ）在基輔成立，打算成為最高權力機關。1917年11月，它在第三次大會（Third Universal）上宣佈成立烏克蘭人民共和國（UPR），作為俄羅斯的一部分。

 

In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.  1917年12月，UPR代表抵達布列斯特-里托夫斯克（Brest-Litovsk），當時蘇維埃俄國（Soviet Russia）正在那裡與德國及其盟國進行談判。在1918年1月10日的會議上，烏克蘭代表團團長宣讀了一份聲明，宣佈烏克蘭獨立。隨後，中央拉達在其第四次大會上宣佈烏克蘭獨立。

 

The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.  宣佈的主權並沒有持續多久。僅僅幾周後，拉達代表與德國集團國家簽署了一份單獨的條約。德國和奧匈帝國當時正處於嚴峻的形勢下，需要烏克蘭的麵包和原材料。為了確保大規模的供應，他們獲得了同意，將其部隊和技術人員派往普遍定期審議。事實上，這被用作佔領的藉口。

 

For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.  對於那些今天將烏克蘭的全部控制權交給外部勢力的人來說，如果能記住，早在1918年，這樣的決定對基輔的統治政權來說是致命的。在佔領軍的直接參與下，中央拉達被推翻，Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi上台，宣佈取代UPR的烏克蘭國家，這基本上是在德國的保護之下。

 

In November 1918 – following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary – Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that ”Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.  1918年11月—

在德國和奧匈帝國發生革命事件後，失去德國刺刀支持的帕夫洛-斯柯洛帕德斯基（Pavlo Skoropadskyi）採取了不同的方針，宣佈「烏克蘭將在全俄聯邦的形成中發揮主導作用」。然而，政權很快又被改變。現在是所謂總署（Directorate）的時代了。

 

In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People's Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People's Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.  1918年秋，烏克蘭民族主義者宣佈成立西烏克蘭人民共和國（WUPR），並在1919年1月宣佈與烏克蘭人民共和國統一。1919年7月，烏克蘭軍隊被波蘭軍隊擊潰，前西烏克蘭人民共和國的領土在波蘭的統治之下。

 

In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the ”heroes“ in today's Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up – in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura's forces surrendered to those same Poles. 1920年4月，Symon Petliura（在今天的烏克蘭被描繪成「英雄」之一）代表「UPR總署」締結了秘密公約，放棄了—作為軍事支持的交換—加利西亞和西沃希尼亞（Western Volhynia）的土地給波蘭。1920年5月，Petliurites在波蘭軍事單位的車隊中進入基輔。但時間不長。早在1920年11月，在波蘭和蘇維埃俄國之間的休戰之後，佩特柳拉（Petliura）的殘餘部隊就向這些波蘭人投降了。

 

The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks' supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.  普羅旺斯的例子表明，在內戰和動盪時期，前俄羅斯帝國各地出現的不同類型的准國家形態，本質上是不穩定的。民族主義者試圖建立自己的獨立國家，而白人運動的領導人則宣導不可分割的俄羅斯。布爾什維克的支持者建立的許多共和國也不認為自己在俄羅斯之外。儘管如此，布爾什維克黨的領導人有時出於各種原因，基本上把他們趕出了蘇維埃俄國。

 

Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic's leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that ”one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.  因此，在1918年初，頓涅茨克-克裡沃羅格蘇維埃共和國（Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic）宣佈成立，並要求莫斯科將其納入蘇維埃俄國。這遭到了拒絕。在與該共和國領導人的會晤中，弗拉基米爾-列寧（Vladimir Lenin）堅持要求他們作為蘇維埃烏克蘭的一部分行事。1918年3月15日，俄羅斯共產黨（布爾什維克）中央委員會直接下令派代表參加烏克蘭蘇維埃大會，其中包括來自頓涅茨克盆地的代表，並在大會上建立「整個烏克蘭的一個政府」。頓涅茨克-克裡沃羅格蘇維埃共和國的領土後來形成了烏克蘭東南部的大部分地區。

 

Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands – the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations. 根據1921年俄羅斯蘇維埃社會主義共和國、烏克蘭蘇維埃社會主義共和國和波蘭之間締結的《里加條約》（Treaty of Riga），前俄羅斯帝國的西部土地被割讓給波蘭。在戰時，波蘭政府奉行積極的重新安置政策，試圖改變東部邊疆地區的民族構成—波蘭對現在的西烏克蘭、西白羅斯和立陶宛部分地區的稱呼。這些地區遭受了嚴酷的波蘭化（Polonisation），當地文化和傳統被壓制。後來，在第二次世界大戰期間，烏克蘭民族主義的激進團體以此為藉口，不僅對波蘭人，而且對猶太人和俄羅斯人實施恐怖。

 

In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin's plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ”parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that ”the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.  1922年，蘇聯成立時，烏克蘭蘇維埃社會主義共和國成為其創始人之一，布爾什維克領導人之間進行了相當激烈的辯論，結果是實施了列寧的計畫，將聯盟國家作為一個平等共和國的聯邦。各共和國自由脫離聯邦的權利被列入《關於建立蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟的宣言》的文本中，隨後被列入1924年蘇聯憲法。這樣，制訂者在我們國家的基礎上埋下了最危險的定時炸彈，當蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯邦的領導作用所提供的安全機制消失的時候，這個炸彈就會爆炸，黨本身就會從內部崩潰。隨後出現了「主權的出走」（parade of sovereignties）。1991年12月8日，簽署了所謂的《關於建立獨立國家聯合體的別洛韋日協議》（elovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States），指出「作為國際法主體和地緣政治現實的蘇聯已不復存在。」順便說一句，烏克蘭從未簽署或批准早在1993年通過的〈獨聯體憲章〉。

 

In the 1920's-1930's, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.  在20世紀20-30年代，布爾什維克積極推動「本土化政策」（localization policy），在烏克蘭蘇維埃社會主義共和國採取了烏克蘭化的形式（form of Ukrainization ）。具有象徵意義的是，作為這一政策的一部分，在蘇聯當局的同意下，前中央拉達主席、烏克蘭民族主義思想家之一的米哈伊爾-格魯舍夫斯基（Mikhail Grushevskiy）在某一時期曾得到奧匈帝國的支持，被送回蘇聯並當選為科學院院士。

 

The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.  本土化政策無疑在發展和鞏固烏克蘭文化、語言和身份方面發揮了重要作用。同時，在打擊所謂的俄羅斯大國沙文主義的幌子下，烏克蘭化往往被強加給那些不認為自己是烏克蘭人的人。這種蘇維埃民族政策在國家層面上確保了對三個獨立的斯拉夫民族的規定。俄羅斯人、烏克蘭人和白羅斯人，而不是龐大的俄羅斯民族，一個由大俄羅斯人、馬魯西亞人和白羅斯人組成的三位一體民族。

 

In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.  1939年，蘇聯收復了先前被波蘭奪取的土地。其中很大一部分成為蘇聯烏克蘭的一部分。1940年，烏克蘭蘇維埃社會主義共和國納入了自1918年以來被羅馬尼亞佔領的貝薩拉比亞（Bessarabia）的一部分，以及北布科維納（Northern Bukovina）。1948年，黑海中的茲梅尼伊島（Zmeyiniy Island，或蛇島）成為烏克蘭的一部分。1954年，蘇聯的克里米亞地區被交給了烏克蘭蘇維埃社會主義共和國，這嚴重違反了當時有效的法律規範。

 

I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine ”with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ – as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.  我想說說喀爾巴阡山脈魯西尼亞（Carpathian Ruthenia）的命運，它在奧匈帝國解體後成為捷克斯洛伐克的一部分。魯西人在當地人口中占了相當大的比例。雖然這一點幾乎不再被提及，但在蘇聯軍隊解放外喀爾巴阡（Transcarpathia ）後，該地區的東正教居民大會投票贊成將喀爾巴阡山魯西尼亞納入蘇維埃社會主義共和國，或者作為一個獨立的喀爾巴阡山共和國（separate Carpathian republic），納入蘇聯本土。然而，人們的選擇卻被忽視了。1945年夏天，喀爾巴阡山脈烏克蘭「與它的古老祖國烏克蘭」統一的歷史行動—正如《真理報》所說的那樣—被宣佈成立。

 

Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.  因此，現代烏克蘭完全是蘇維埃時代的產物。我們知道並清楚地記得，它有很大一部分是在歷史上的俄羅斯的土地上形成的。為了確定這一點，只需看看17世紀與俄羅斯國家統一的土地的邊界和烏克蘭蘇維埃社會主義共和國離開蘇聯時的領土。

 

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.  布爾什維克把俄國人民當作他們社會實驗的不竭材料。他們夢想著一場能消滅民族國家的世界革命。這就是為什麼他們在劃定邊界和贈予領土方面如此慷慨。布爾什維克領導人把國家砍成碎片的想法到底是什麼，已經不重要了。我們可以對某些決定背後的小細節、背景和邏輯產生分歧。有一個事實是非常清楚的：俄羅斯確實被搶劫了。

 

When working on this article, I relied on open-source documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external ”patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks' efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.  在撰寫這篇文章時，我依靠的是包含眾所周知的事實的公開檔案，而不是一些秘密記錄。現代烏克蘭的領導人和他們的外部「贊助人」寧願忽略這些事實。然而，他們不放過任何機會，在國內和國外都譴責「蘇維埃政權的罪行」，在這些事件中，既沒有中央政治局委員，也沒有蘇聯，更沒有現代俄羅斯與之有關。同時，布爾什維克將其歷史領土從俄羅斯分離出去的努力不被認為是犯罪。我們也知道原因：如果他們削弱了俄羅斯，不懷好意的人就會為此高興。

 

Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU's leading role. But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.  當然，在蘇聯內部，各共和國之間的邊界從未被視為國家邊界；它們是一個單一國家內的名義邊界，雖然具有聯邦的所有屬性，但卻是高度集中的—這也是由中央政治局的領導作用所保證的。但在1991年，所有這些領土，以及更重要的是人民，一夜之間發現自己在國外，這次確實被從他們的歷史祖國帶走了。

 

What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!  對此可以說什麼呢？事情會發生變化：國家和社區也不例外。當然，一個民族的某些部分在其發展過程中，受到一些原因和歷史環境的影響，會在某一時刻意識到自己是一個獨立的國家。我們應該如何對待這種情況呢？答案只有一個：尊重！

 

You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.  你想建立一個屬於你自己的國家：歡迎！但條件是什麼？我將回顧新俄羅斯最傑出的政治人物之一、聖彼德堡第一任市長阿納托利-索布恰克（Anatoly Sobchak）的評價。作為一個相信每一個決定都必須是合法的法律專家，在1992年，他分享了以下意見：作為聯盟創始人的各共和國，在廢除了1922年的聯盟條約後，必須回到他們加入蘇聯之前的邊界。所有其他領土的獲得都需要討論、談判，因為該地已經被撤銷。

 

In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people's views.  換句話說，當你離開時，帶走你帶來的東西。這種邏輯很難反駁。我只想說，甚至在蘇聯之前，布爾什維克就已經開始著手重塑邊界，按照他們的喜好操縱與領土，無視人們的意見。

 

The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990's and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever ”political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991–2013, Ukraine's budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.  俄羅斯聯邦承認新的地緣政治現實：不僅承認，而且確實為烏克蘭建立自己的獨立國家做了很多事情。在整個艱難的1990年代和新千年，我們為烏克蘭提供了大量支持。無論基輔自己想用什麼「政治算術」，在1991-2013年，烏克蘭的預算節餘超過820億美元，而今天，它僅靠俄羅斯支付的15億美元的天然氣過境歐洲來維持。如果我們國家之間的經濟聯繫得以保留，烏克蘭將享受數百億美元的利益。

 

Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.  烏克蘭和俄羅斯作為一個單一的經濟體系已經發展了幾十年和幾個世紀。我們30年前的深刻合作是歐盟仰望的榜樣。我們是天然互補的經濟夥伴。這種密切的關係可以加強競爭優勢，增加兩國的潛力。

 

Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.  烏克蘭曾經擁有巨大的潛力，其中包括強大的基礎設施、天然氣運輸系統、先進的造船、航空、火箭和儀器工程行業，以及世界級的科學、設計和工程學校。接管這一遺產並宣佈獨立後，烏克蘭領導人承諾，烏克蘭經濟將成為領先的經濟之一，生活水準將是歐洲最好的之一。

 

Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine's electricity production, which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine's GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe's poorest country.  今天，曾經是烏克蘭和整個聯盟的驕傲的高科技工業巨頭，正在沉淪。十年來，工程產出下降了42%。去工業化的規模和整體經濟的退化在烏克蘭的電力生產中是顯而易見的，30年來，烏克蘭的電力生產幾乎減少了2倍。最後，根據國際貨幣基金組織的報告，2019年，在冠狀病毒大流行爆發之前，烏克蘭的人均GDP已經低於4千美元。這比阿爾巴尼亞共和國、莫爾達瓦共和國或未被承認的科索沃還要少。如今，烏克蘭是歐洲最貧窮的國家。

 

Who is to blame for this? Is it the people of Ukraine's fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.  這該怪誰呢？是烏克蘭人民的錯嗎？當然不是。是烏克蘭當局揮霍和浪費了許多代人的成就。我們知道烏克蘭人民是多麼勤奮和有才華。他們可以憑藉毅力和決心獲得成功和傑出的成果。而這些品質，以及他們的開放性、與生俱來的樂觀精神和好客精神並沒有消失。數百萬人對待俄羅斯的感情不僅是好的，而且是非常有感情的，就像我們對烏克蘭的感情一樣，保持不變。

 

Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.  直到2014年，數以百計的協議和聯合專案旨在發展我們的經濟、商業和文化關係，加強安全，並解決共同的社會和環境問題。它們給人們帶來了實實在在的好處—無論是在俄羅斯還是烏克蘭。這就是我們認為最重要的東西。這就是為什麼我們與所有，我強調，與烏克蘭所有領導人進行了富有成效的互動。

 

Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine's top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the ”aggressor state“ is.  甚至在2014年基輔事件發生後，我責成俄羅斯政府在相關部會和機構內詳細制訂維護和保持我們經濟關係的選項。然而，過去和現在都沒有做同樣事情的共同意願。儘管如此，俄羅斯仍然是烏克蘭的三大交易夥伴之一，數十萬烏克蘭人來到我們這裡工作，他們找到了受歡迎的接待和支持。所以，這就是（所謂）「侵略國」的含義。

 

When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events – at first gradually, and then more rapidly – started to move in a different direction.  當蘇聯解體時，俄羅斯和烏克蘭的許多人真誠地相信並假定，我們密切的文化、精神和經濟聯繫肯定會持續下去，我們人民的共同性也會持續下去，他們的核心一直是團結的意識。然而，事件—起初是逐漸地，然後更迅速地—開始向不同的方向發展。

 

In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.  從本質上講，烏克蘭的統治階層決定透過否認國家的過去來證明他們國家的獨立，然而，除了邊界問題。他們開始神話和改寫歷史，編輯掉所有使我們團結起來的東西，並把烏克蘭是俄羅斯帝國和蘇聯的一部分的時期稱為佔領。1930年代初集體化和饑荒的共同悲劇被描繪成對烏克蘭人民的種族滅絕。

 

Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else's geopolitical will.  激進分子和新納粹分子公開而且越來越放肆地表達他們的野心。他們受到官方和地方寡頭的縱容，這些人搶劫烏克蘭人民，把他們的贓款存放在西方銀行，準備為保住他們的資本而出賣自己的祖國。除此之外，還應該加上國家機構的持續軟弱和自願成為別人地緣政治意願的人質的地位。

 

I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia's repeated calls for dialogue.  我記得很久以前，遠在2014年之前，美國和歐盟國家系統地、持續地推動烏克蘭縮減和限制與俄羅斯的經濟合作。我們作為烏克蘭最大的貿易和經濟夥伴，建議以烏克蘭—俄羅斯—歐盟的形式討論正在出現的問題。但每次我們都被告知，俄羅斯與此無關，該問題只涉及歐盟和烏克蘭。事實上，西方國家拒絕了俄羅斯一再提出的對話呼籲。

 

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.  烏克蘭一步步被拖入一個危險的地緣政治遊戲，旨在將烏克蘭變成歐洲和俄羅斯之間的障礙，成為反對俄羅斯的跳板。不可避免的是，有一天，「烏克蘭不是俄羅斯」的概念不再是一種選擇。需要有「反俄羅斯」的概念，我們永遠不會接受。

 

The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.  這個項目的所有者以波蘭—奧地利思想家的舊基礎工作為基礎，創造了一個「反莫斯科的俄羅斯」（anti-Moscow Russia）。而且沒有必要欺騙任何人，這是為烏克蘭人民的利益而做的。波蘭—立陶宛邦聯從來不需要烏克蘭文化，更不需要哥薩克自治。在奧匈帝國，歷史上的俄羅斯土地被無情地剝削，仍然是最貧窮的。納粹在OUN-UPA的合作者的唆使下，不需要烏克蘭，而是需要雅利安霸主的生存空間和奴隸。

 

Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.  2014年2月，烏克蘭人民的利益也沒有被考慮到。由於嚴重的社會經濟問題、錯誤和當時當局不一致的行動所引起的合法的公眾不滿，只是被冷酷地利用了。西方國家直接干涉烏克蘭的內部事務並支援政變。激進的民族主義團體充當了政變的敲門磚。他們的口號、意識形態和公然的侵略性恐俄症（Russophobia），在很大程度上成為烏克蘭國家政策的決定性因素。

 

All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new ”Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the ”purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.  所有將我們團結在一起並使我們至今仍在一起的東西都受到了攻擊。首先，最重要的是俄語。讓我提醒你，新的「梅丹」（Maidan）當局首先試圖廢除關於國家語言政策的法律。然後是關於「淨化權力」的法律，關於教育的法律，實際上把俄語從教育過程中切斷了。

 

Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on ”indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.  最後，早在今年5月，現任總統就向拉達提出了一項關於「原住民」的法案。只有那些構成少數民族且在烏克蘭境外沒有自己的國家實體的人被承認為原住民。該法律已被通過。新的不和諧的種子已經被播下。正如我已經指出的那樣，這發生在一個在領土、民族和語言組成方面非常複雜的國家，以及它的形成歷史。

 

There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be – Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.  可能有一種說法：如果你談論的是一個單一的大國，一個三位一體的國家，那麼人們認為自己是誰—俄羅斯人、烏克蘭人或白羅斯人，有什麼區別呢？我完全同意這一點。特別是由於確定國籍，尤其是在混合家庭中，是每個人的權利，可以自由地做出自己的選擇。

 

But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.  但事實是，今天烏克蘭的情況完全不同，因為它涉及到身份的強制改變。而最卑鄙的是，烏克蘭的俄羅斯人不僅被強迫否認他們的根，否認他們幾代人的祖先，而且還被強迫相信俄羅斯是他們的敵人。可以毫不誇張地說，強制同化的道路，形成一個對俄羅斯具有侵略性的純正烏克蘭民族國家，其後果堪比對我們使用大規模毀滅性武器。由於俄羅斯人和烏克蘭人的這種嚴酷和人為的分裂，俄羅斯人的總數可能會減少數十萬甚至數百萬。

 

Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.  我們的精神統一性也受到了攻擊。就像立陶宛大公國時期一樣，新的教會已經開始了。世俗當局毫不掩飾其政治目的，公然干涉教會生活，使事情走向分裂，奪取教堂，毆打牧師和僧侶。即使是烏克蘭東正教會的廣泛自治，同時與莫斯科牧首區保持精神上的統一，也讓他們強烈不滿。他們必須不惜一切代價摧毀這個突出的、有幾百年歷史的我們的親屬關係的象徵。

 

I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.  我認為，烏克蘭代表一次又一次地投票反對譴責美化納粹主義的聯合國大會決議也是很自然的。紀念黨衛軍部隊剩餘戰犯的遊行和火炬遊行，是在官方的保護下進行的。背叛所有人的馬澤帕（Mazepa）、用烏克蘭土地支付波蘭贊助的佩特利烏拉（Petliura）和與納粹合作的班德拉（Bandera）被列為民族英雄。人們正在做一切事情，從年輕一代的記憶中抹去真正的愛國者和勝利者的名字，他們一直是烏克蘭的驕傲。

 

For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot Ivan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.  對於在紅軍和遊擊隊中作戰的烏克蘭人來說，偉大的衛國戰爭（Great Patriotic War）確實是一場愛國戰爭，因為他們在保衛自己的家園，保衛偉大的共同祖國。兩千多名士兵成為蘇聯的英雄。其中有傳奇飛行員伊萬-科哲杜布（Ivan Kozhedub），無畏的狙擊手，奧德薩（Odessa）和塞瓦斯托波爾（Sevastopol）的保衛者柳德米拉-帕夫裡琴科（Lyudmila Pavlichenko），勇敢的遊擊隊指揮官西多爾-科夫派克（Sidor Kovpak）。這不屈不撓的一代人在戰鬥，這些人為了我們的未來，為了我們獻出了自己的生命。忘記他們的壯舉就是背叛了我們的祖輩、母親和父親。

 

The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.  反俄計畫已被數百萬烏克蘭人拒絕。克里米亞的人民和塞瓦斯托波爾（Sevastopol）的居民做出了歷史性的選擇。而東南部的人們則和平地試圖捍衛自己的立場。然而，他們所有人，包括兒童，都被貼上了分離主義者和恐怖分子的標籤。他們被威脅要進行種族清洗和使用軍事力量。頓涅茨克和盧甘斯克的居民拿起武器，捍衛他們的家園、他們的語言和他們的生活。在席捲烏克蘭各城市的暴亂之後，在2014年5月2日奧德薩的恐怖和悲劇之後，烏克蘭新納粹分子將人們活活燒死，使其成為新的哈廷，他們還有其他選擇嗎？班德拉的追隨者們準備在克里米亞、塞瓦斯托波爾、頓涅茨克和盧甘斯克進行同樣的屠殺。即使現在他們也沒有放棄這種計畫。他們在等待時機。但他們的時機不會到來。

 

The coup d'état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.  政變和基輔當局的後續行動不可避免地挑起了對抗和內戰。聯合國人權事務高級專員估計，頓巴斯衝突中的受害者總數已超過13,000人。其中有老人和兒童。這些都是可怕的、無法彌補的損失。

 

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.  俄羅斯已經做了一切來阻止自相殘殺。旨在和平解決頓巴斯衝突的〈明斯克協議〉已經達成。我相信，他們仍然沒有其他選擇。無論如何，沒有人撤回對明斯克措施（Minsk Package of Measures）或諾曼第模式國家（Normandy format countries）領導人的相關聲明的簽名。沒有人啟動對聯合國安全理事會2015年2月17日決議的審查。

 

During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine's representatives regularly declare their ”full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of ”unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the ”victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.  在正式談判中，特別是在受到西方夥伴的約束後，烏克蘭的代表經常宣佈他們 「完全遵守」〈明斯克協議〉，但實際上是以「不可接受」的立場為指導。他們既不打算認真討論頓巴斯的特殊地位，也不打算討論對生活在那裡的人民的保障措施。他們寧願利用「外部侵略的受害者」的形象，兜售恐俄症。他們在頓巴斯安排血腥的挑釁行為。簡而言之，他們透過各種手段吸引外部贊助者和主子的注意。

 

Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add – under the protection and control of the Western powers.  顯然，而且我越來越相信這一點。基輔根本不需要頓巴斯。為什麼呢？因為，首先，這些地區的居民永遠不會接受他們已經和正在試圖通過武力、封鎖和威脅強加的秩序。其次，〈明斯克協議1〉和〈明斯克協議2〉都提供了一個真正的機會，在俄羅斯、德國和法國的調解下，直接與頓內次克人民共和國和盧甘斯克人民共和國達成協議，從而和平地恢復烏克蘭的領土完整，其結果違背了反俄專案的整個邏輯。而它只能透過不斷培養內外敵人的形象來維持。我還想說—在西方大國的保護和控制下。

 

This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military ”development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on ”indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.  這就是實際發生的情況。首先，我們正面臨著在烏克蘭社會製造恐懼氣氛，發表侵略性言論，縱容新納粹分子和國家軍事化。與此同時，我們看到的不僅僅是完全的依賴，而是直接的外部控制，包括外國顧問對烏克蘭當局、安全部門和武裝部隊的監督，烏克蘭領土的軍事「發展」和北約基礎設施的部署。上述關於「原住民」的公然法律是在北約在烏克蘭大規模演習的掩護下通過的，這絕非巧合。

 

This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today's generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.  這也是為接管烏克蘭經濟的其他部分和開採其自然資源而做的偽裝。農業用地的出售已經不遠了，誰會買下它是顯而易見的。烏克蘭確實不時得到財政資源和貸款，但都是在他們自己的條件下，追求自己的利益，對西方公司有優惠和好處。順便問一下，誰來償還這些債務？顯然，人們認為，這不僅要由今天這一代烏克蘭人來完成，而且還要由他們的子女、孫子、可能還有曾孫來完成。

 

The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.  反俄計畫的西方作者以這樣的方式建立了烏克蘭的政治制度，即總統、議員和部長會改變，但與俄羅斯分離和敵對的態度會保持下去。達成和平是現任總統的主要選舉口號。他是以此上台的。結果這些承諾都是謊言。一切都沒有改變。在某些方面，烏克蘭和頓巴斯周邊地區的局勢甚至惡化了。

 

In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as ”pro-Russian“ agents.  在反俄計畫中，既沒有主權烏克蘭的位置，也沒有試圖捍衛其真正獨立的政治力量的位置。那些談論烏克蘭社會和解，談論對話，談論為目前的僵局尋找出路的人被貼上了「親俄」分子的標籤。

 

Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.  同樣，對烏克蘭的許多人來說，反俄計畫是完全不可接受的。而且有數百萬這樣的人。但他們不被允許抬頭。他們捍衛自己觀點的合法機會事實上已經被剝奪了。他們受到恐嚇，被趕到地下。他們不僅因為自己的信念，因為說話，因為公開表達自己的立場而受到迫害，而且還被殺害。殺人者，通常不受懲罰。

 

Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.  今天，烏克蘭的「右派」愛國者只是憎恨俄羅斯的人。此外，整個烏克蘭的國家地位，正如我們所理解的那樣，被提議完全建立在這個想法上。仇恨和憤怒，正如世界歷史一再證明的那樣，是主權的一個非常不穩定的基礎，充滿了許多嚴重的風險和可怕的後果。

 

All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.  與反俄計畫相關的所有潛規則我們都很清楚。我們決不允許利用我們的歷史領土和生活在那裡的親近的人來反對俄羅斯。對於那些將進行這種嘗試的人，我想說的是，這樣做他們將摧毀自己的國家。

 

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.  烏克蘭現任當局喜歡參考西方的經驗，把它看作是一個可以效仿的模式。只要看看奧地利和德國、美國和加拿大是如何毗鄰而居的。它們在種族組成和文化上很接近，事實上共用一種語言，但它們仍然是主權國家，有自己的利益，有自己的外交政策。但這並不妨礙它們建立最緊密的一體化或盟友關係。它們擁有非常有條件的、透明的邊界。當穿越邊界時，公民們會有賓至如歸的感覺。他們建立家庭，學習，工作，做生意。順便說一句，數百萬出生在烏克蘭、現在生活在俄羅斯的人也是如此。我們把他們看作是我們自己的親近的人。

 

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.  俄羅斯對與烏克蘭的對話持開放態度，並準備討論最複雜的問題。但重要的是我們要明白，我們的夥伴是在捍衛自己的國家利益，但不是為別人服務，也不是別人手中對抗我們的工具。

 

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.  我們尊重烏克蘭的語言和傳統。我們尊重烏克蘭人希望看到他們的國家自由、安全和繁榮的願望。

 

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.  我相信，只有在與俄羅斯的夥伴關係中，烏克蘭的真正主權才有可能。我們的精神、人文和文明紐帶已經形成了幾個世紀，它們的源頭是相同的，它們在共同的考驗、成就和勝利中得到了淬煉。我們的親屬關係已經代代相傳。它存在於生活在現代俄羅斯和烏克蘭的人們的心中和記憶中，存在於將我們數百萬家庭聯繫在一起的血緣關係中。我們一直在一起，並將在許多時候更強大、更成功。因為我們是一個民族。

 

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.  今天，這些話可能被一些人以敵視的眼光看待。它們可以被解釋為許多可能的方式。然而，許多人都會聽到我的話。我要說的是—俄羅斯過去和將來都不會「反烏克蘭」。而烏克蘭將成為什麼樣的國家—這要由其公民來決定。