When a mass movement broke out in 2013 against the corrupt government of Viktor Yanukovich in Ukraine, the United States and its West European allies mobilized to support it. The policy was justified by the Wilsonian logic of promoting democracy and celebrated as such by liberals. Realists for the most part agreed with the liberal argument regarding the motive of that support, but criticized it as delusional and argued that the subsequent civil war in Ukraine was the consequence of that policy. This is a puzzle, because five years prior to the Ukrainian events, a mass movement had rocked Armenia— another post-Soviet state. The West's attitude toward that movement, however, ranged from indifference to hostility, even though the Wilsonian motives for supporting that movement should have been stronger. The difference in the West's response resulted from the different positions of the two movements toward Russia: the Ukrainian movement was intensely hostile toward Russia, whereas the Armenian movement was not. In other words, where Wilsonianism dovetailed with a geopolitical motive, it was triggered; where it diverged, Wilsonianism remained dormant. This is not a deviation from the general pattern either. Contrary to the popular narrative, the West has supported democracy only when that support has been reinforced by material interests, and rarely, if ever, when it has posed a threat to such interests.

中文翻译：

---

选择性威尔逊主义：物质利益与西方对民主的支持

2013 年，当一场反对乌克兰腐败的维克多·亚努科维奇政府的群众运动爆发时，美国及其西欧盟友动员起来支持它。该政策被威尔逊促进民主的逻辑证明是合理的，并受到自由主义者的赞扬。现实主义者在很大程度上同意关于这种支持动机的自由主义论点，但批评它是妄想，并认为随后的乌克兰内战是该政策的结果。这是一个谜，因为在乌克兰事件发生五年前，一场群众运动震撼了亚美尼亚——另一个后苏联国家。然而，西方对这一运动的态度从漠不关心到敌对，尽管威尔逊支持该运动的动机本应更强烈。西方的差异' 其反应源于两个对俄运动的立场不同：乌克兰运动对俄罗斯的敌意强烈，而亚美尼亚运动则不然。换句话说，当威尔逊主义与地缘政治动机相吻合时，它就会被触发；在它发生分歧的地方，威尔逊主义仍然处于休眠状态。这也不偏离一般模式。与流行的说法相反，西方只有在物质利益得到加强的情况下才支持民主，而且很少（如果有的话）对这些利益构成威胁。在它发生分歧的地方，威尔逊主义仍然处于休眠状态。这也不偏离一般模式。与流行的说法相反，西方只有在物质利益得到加强的情况下才支持民主，而且很少（如果有的话）对这些利益构成威胁。在它发生分歧的地方，威尔逊主义仍然处于休眠状态。这也不偏离一般模式。与流行的说法相反，西方只有在物质利益得到加强的情况下才支持民主，而且很少（如果有的话）对这些利益构成威胁。