假如穿越回1991年或2000年的俄罗斯，以当时的视角看，面对苏联解体和休克疗法留下的烂摊子，俄国人应该制定一幅怎样的“复兴路线图”呢？

欧盟经济实力雄厚，俄国能源丰富，双方简直是天然的互补。

按照计划，俄国首先需要在安全层面与欧洲达成谅解协议，然后经济领域尽可能同欧洲绑定，最终形成以能源为纽带的“俄欧联合体”。

如果俄国领导人有本事把美国搞定，让其不干涉俄欧合作，俄罗斯甚至可以尝试加入欧盟，彻底了却自十七世纪彼得大帝以来的欧洲情结。

B |     New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.

Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.

"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.

"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?

Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.

On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.

"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.

"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.

"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.

He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.

The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.

Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:

Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?

Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?

What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?

UNI SM BAV GNK。

回顾叶利钦时期和普京初期的操作，他们的确是往这个方向走的，而那时欧盟刚刚成立，欧洲领导人也雄心勃勃的想自主自强，与俄罗斯一拍即合。

C |

俄欧走近过程中的第一道坎是1999年的科索沃战争。

众所周知，前南联盟（塞尔维亚和黑山）是俄罗斯铁杆小弟，也是俄国在巴尔干半岛上唯一的支点盟友。

1999年3月至6月，北约联军对前南联盟进行了为期78天的大规模空袭，造成科索沃事实性独立的现状（在俄罗斯人看来，2008年俄格战争和2014年克里米亚事件无非是复制了北约在科索沃的做法）。

科索沃战争于6月11日结束，俄罗斯方面希望组建一支独立于北约的维和部队，遭断然拒绝。

愤怒之余，以总参谋长克瓦什宁大将为首的俄军鹰派绕过国防部和克里姆林宫，下令驻波黑的第76近卫空中突击师闪击科索沃唯一的机场——普里蒂什纳机场。

D |

6月12日，俄罗斯军队和北约军队发生激烈对峙，经高层沟通，双方最终达成共同负责机场安全的和解协议。

虽说普里蒂什纳机场对峙只是一次很小规模的军事对抗，但它从一个侧面表明，俄罗斯对于自身地缘空间被压缩是有底线的。

这一事件在欧洲引起了很大反响，有媒体甚至惊呼“1945年回来了”。

虽说俄欧关系因1999年科索沃危机、2004年乌克兰橙色革命和2008年俄格冲突等地缘安全事件产生了一些龃龉，但总的来看，双方合作共赢的主轴没有改变。

俄罗斯不仅不反对欧盟东扩，反而逐渐以邻国的角色来看待欧盟。

普京第二任期结束的2008年，与欧盟贸易占到了俄国外贸总额的52.3%，在外国直接投资领域，来自欧盟的比例更是高达75%。

E |

2010年，普京提出建设“从里斯本到符拉迪沃斯托克”大欧洲的宏伟概念，不久还与欧盟签署了战略伙伴关系协议。

F |

2011年11月8日，北溪1号天然气管道落成启用。

揭幕典礼上，俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫、德国总理默克尔、荷兰首相吕特和法国总理菲永济济一堂，外界对于俄欧关系的未来一时间充满憧憬。

然而很可惜，俄欧之间靠近的趋势最终因2014年克里米亚事件而中断——普京总统因地缘政治利益的诱惑，放弃了自九十年代以来长期贯彻的“复兴路线图”。

在2000~2010年代，美国视角下的全球地缘政治格局大致是这样的，自西向东：美国-欧盟-俄罗斯-中国-美国。

这四个实体组成了两对战略三角关系，分别是“美-欧-俄”和“美-中-俄”。

2010年中国GDP只有6万亿美元，欧盟是14.5万亿美元，所以站在美国的角度，显然“美-欧-俄”三角更加重要。

G |

因此，这一时期美国的战略重点是增加俄罗斯与欧盟之间的对抗性，用地缘危机事件破坏掉俄欧靠近的大趋势，避免形成足以威胁美国霸权的欧俄共同体。

与之相较，“美-中-俄”三角的矛盾相对缓和，在华盛顿眼中属于次要议题。

实际上，虽说感情层面发达国家/发展中国家内部走得比较近，但真具体到经济利益层面，发达国家与发达国家是对手关系，发展中国家与发展中国家是对手关系，发达国家与发展中国家则是合作互补关系。

H |

让我们重新回到“美-欧-俄”和“美-中-俄”两对战略三角关系。

站在美国角度，它最希望看到亚欧大陆上的欧、俄、中三方互相敌对，最不希望看到欧、俄、中三方彼此友好/结盟。

I |

两种场景中间，美国希望欧-俄、俄-中两对关系里至少有一对处于冷战状态（热战需要美国源源不断的投入资源），这样便可以将主要战略资源投入到另一对三角关系的对抗中。

J |

而在可预期的未来一段时间里，俄罗斯与欧洲想要修复关系已十分困难。

K |

说起来令人唏嘘，俄罗斯与欧洲其实是一荣俱荣一损俱损的关系，在乌克兰战争爆发后，欧洲同样失去了作为世界一极的梦想，只能更加依附于美国。

有学者点评道，在俄罗斯历史上，与俄乌战争最接近的莫过于1850年代的克里米亚战争。

克里米亚战争让俄罗斯帝国的战略传统发生重大偏离，自彼得大帝以来的接受和融入欧洲“均势体系”思路遭到破坏，俄国与英法爆发了直接冲突。

在克里米亚受挫后，俄国调头向东，开始入侵中国和中亚地区。

同样的逻辑，乌克兰战争彻底打断了自1990年代以来俄罗斯与欧洲走近的趋势，是俄罗斯“脱欧之战”。

L |

随着深陷战争泥潭，国力遭到严重消耗，莫斯科不得不向东看，把与中国的经贸关系摆在优先位置。

国运如流水，错过不再来，俄罗斯想要再寻觅一条“俄欧共同体”这样的复兴之路难度非常之大。