當地時間12月2日，美國國務卿魯比奧在接受福斯新聞採訪時表示，由美國斡旋達成的和平協議將為烏克蘭人民提供未來的安全保障，使他們能夠重建經濟並邁向繁榮。他預測，如果戰爭結束，且烏克蘭採取正確措施，其國內生產總值在十年內可能超過俄羅斯。魯比奧的言論呈現出一幅美好的願景，讓人對烏克蘭未來抱有期待，但同時也引發了諸多疑問：這場和平究竟如何達成？是否需要割地或作出其他政治讓步？所謂的安全保障又將如何持續？歷史上布達佩斯備忘錄與明斯克協議的經驗，是否會再次重演？

這番言論在網路上引發廣泛討論，許多網友質疑美國是否再次在向烏克蘭開「空頭支票」，仿佛之前承諾只要烏克蘭放棄核武，就能換來持久和平一般。批評者指出，過去歷史經驗顯示，國際協議的保障往往難以落實，安全承諾可能隨著國際政治變化而削弱，烏克蘭能否真正實現長期穩定和經濟繁榮仍存在高度不確定性。

此外，分析人士認為，和平協議的可行性不僅取決於國際斡旋，還需要考量俄烏雙方的實際利益與安全需求，以及各國在戰後秩序中的角色與承諾。如果烏克蘭未來僅依賴外部保證，而未能建立自身強有力的國家安全和經濟基礎，即便簽署協議，也可能面臨歷史上類似布達佩斯備忘錄和明斯克協議的困境——承諾與現實之間存在巨大落差。

總體而言，魯比奧的言論提供一個理想化的藍圖，描繪烏克蘭在戰爭結束後的安全與經濟前景，但這份藍圖在操作層面上仍充滿挑戰與不確定性。網友的質疑也反映公眾對國際承諾可信度的警惕，以及對烏克蘭未來和平能否真正落實的深層憂慮。

On December 2 local time, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in an interview with Fox News that a peace agreement brokered by the United States would provide future security guarantees for the people of Ukraine, allowing them to rebuild their economy and move toward prosperity. He predicted that if the war ended and Ukraine took the right measures, its gross domestic product could surpass that of Russia within ten years. While Rubio’s remarks painted an optimistic vision and gave hope for Ukraine’s future, they also raised many questions: How would peace actually be achieved? Would territorial concessions or other political compromises be required? How would the promised security guarantees be sustained? Given the historical precedents of the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk agreements, might Ukraine once again face a gap between promises and reality?

These statements sparked widespread discussion online, with many netizens questioning whether the United States was once again offering Ukraine an “empty promise,” similar to the previous notion that giving up nuclear weapons would secure lasting peace. Critics noted that historical experience shows international guarantees are often difficult to enforce, and security commitments can weaken as international political dynamics shift. Whether Ukraine can truly achieve long-term stability and economic prosperity remains highly uncertain.

Analysts further argue that the feasibility of a peace agreement depends not only on international mediation but also on the actual interests and security needs of both Russia and Ukraine, as well as the roles and commitments of other countries in the postwar order. If Ukraine relies solely on external guarantees without building a strong national security and economic foundation, even a signed agreement could encounter challenges similar to those experienced under the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk agreements—where commitments and reality diverged sharply.

Overall, Rubio’s statements provide an idealized blueprint, outlining Ukraine’s potential security and economic future after the war. However, this vision remains fraught with practical challenges and uncertainties. Public skepticism, reflected in the reactions of netizens, highlights widespread concerns about the credibility of international commitments and whether peace in Ukraine can truly be realized.