烏克蘭與俄羅斯皆源於基輔羅斯，彼此交錯了300年，近年來烏克蘭成為歐盟的長期策略目標之一，自2009年歐盟啟動了東部夥伴計畫，嘗試將東歐包含烏克蘭在內的6個國家都網羅至歐盟。烏克蘭的地理位置與資源優越讓歐俄兩方極欲拉攏，俄羅斯總統普京試圖將烏克蘭政府拉回歐亞聯盟，在這拉扯間，就此爆發了烏克蘭危機。危機延續接著克里米亞脫烏入俄及烏東反叛軍與政府軍的對立。 烏克蘭內部的分裂導致危機一發不可收拾，烏克蘭東西兩邊的文化、歷史、宗教、語言都有嚴重的差距，烏東地區深受俄羅斯影響，烏西地區則是嚮往著歐美西方，國內的民族問題、政治貪腐及經濟低迷不振等，都是烏克蘭當前國家發展所面臨的困境。烏克蘭的未來並非完全掌握在烏克蘭人民手中，而是深受美國、歐盟、俄羅斯等大國影響，此次烏克蘭克里米亞事件及烏東動亂，徹底地將問題浮上檯面。總結烏克蘭國家未來發展路線深受三個因素影響，首要是過去俄烏因素，其次是外部俄、美、歐關係，第三是烏克蘭內部發展路線之爭。

在普丁就任總統之後，讓一個經濟衰敗、國力萎靡的俄羅斯，從谷底翻身，進入世界強國之列。其間與歐盟的合盟與競爭，成為普丁強國戰略的運用。然而當俄羅斯開始強大，無法避免的也與歐盟有了政治現實利益的衝突，烏克蘭事件即是俄歐利益衝突具體的體現。 　　本研究探討普丁時期，俄羅斯與歐盟的關係。採歷史研究法、文獻分析法，來獲得本研究進行之資料與文獻，並由現實主義以及地緣政治理論，做為本研究的研究途徑，得出研究結論有三項。 一、 強化俄歐合作，以尋找多極世界建構的可能 二、烏克蘭事件是普丁俄歐關係之底牌 三、克里米亞入俄公投揭示俄歐關係的遠程目標 / After Putin took up a post, he let the economy decline, debilitating national power in Russia ,turning over the lowest point, and entering one of the most powerful nations. During the period of cooperating and competing with European Union, he uses the strategy of becoming a powerful country. However, when Russia becomes stronger, it can't avoid having conflicts of political benefits with European Union. The Ukraine incident embodies the beneficial conflict concretely. This research probes into the relationship between Russia and European Union during Putin's time, and it adopts research law documentation analyses to acquire it's information and document, through the realism and geopolitics theory as the means to reach the following three conclusions: First, intensify the cooperation between Russia and European Unions to seek the possibility of multi world design. Second, The Ukraine incident is the relation between Russia and European Unions the card in Putin's hands. Third, Crimea's referendums to Russia reveals the long range relations between Russia and Europe.

西元2014年3月16日原屬於烏克蘭的克里米亞自治共和國舉行了全民公投， 其最終的結果，超過九成的選民贊同加入俄羅斯聯邦。就筆者從俄羅斯相關的外交政策觀察中發現，兼併克里米亞的積極性與主動性原因不僅僅只是為了領土的增加，更多的考量是在於地緣利益的維持與獲得。因此本文將從地緣政治的觀點切入，企圖了解克里米亞半島對於俄羅斯的地緣重要性為何？俄羅斯在2014年克里米亞事件中所扮演的角色？收回克里米亞後對於俄羅斯的地緣政治產生何種影響？ 收回克里米亞的迫切性起因在於2013年底烏克蘭親歐盟示威，俄羅斯明顯感受到來自於歐盟和北約不斷地東擴的壓力，因此不得不做出回應，以俄裔人口為居多的克里米亞成為俄羅斯發揮其影響力的首選之地。在2014年克里米亞事件中，俄羅斯的態度和作為符合國際關係中「攻勢現實主義」的圭臬，即強調大國會不斷尋求機會採取攻勢獲取最大權力，俄羅斯的主動出兵和強硬態度便是最好的佐證。 最後，本文認為2014年克里米亞事件後，即便國際社會普遍撻伐俄羅斯的行為，並祭出經濟制裁懲罰性手段，然而對於自身俄羅斯而言，不僅成功收回克里米亞，還重獲地緣政治利益，可以說是蘇聯解體後，地緣競逐中最大的一場勝利。 / On March 16, 2014, a referendum was held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which was one part of Ukraine. The final result was over a 90 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout. According to the author’s observation on some related foreign policy of Russia, the cause of the initiative and motivation of annexing Crimea is not only increasing its territory but also retaining and obtaining its geopolitical benefit. Therefore, this paper will focus on the concept of geopolitics to understand what Crimea is, why it matters, which role does Russia play during the Crimean crisis of 2014, and what will be the influence after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. In the end of 2013, Euromaidan in Ukraine was the main reason for Russia to take back Crimea urgently. Due to the expansion of EU and NATO to post-soviet countries, Russia had no choice but to react to the threat. Consequently, Russia tried to make a great impact on the status of Crimea, where ethnic Russians are dominant. In the event of the Crimean crisis of 2014, Russia’s attitude and behavior were in accordance with the principle of “Offensive Realism”, that is to say the great power emphasized on a non-stop way in search of opportunities in order to obtain the maximum authority, and Russia spontaneously sent military troops with a solid attitude to handle the situation as the best proof of evidence. Finally, the study shows that after the Crimean crisis of 2014, even though lots of countries in international community blamed it on Russia, and imposed economic sanctions on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia has successfully retaken Crimea and regained the geopolitical advantage. It was the biggest victory of the geopolitical competition since the Soviet Union collapsed.

本論文旨在探討俄羅斯外交政策之動機與推動因素，文中以新古典現實主義做為研究架構，並結合了體系層次因素（自變項）及個體層次的中介變項（如：領導人形象和戰略文化）。本論文所探討之時間軸橫跨1991至2014年，重點著重於以下兩研究案例：2008年南奧塞提亞戰爭及2014年克里米亞危機。針對此兩研究案例，作者使用「過程追蹤」和「歷史敘事」的研究方法，以驗證體系與個體層次因素對於俄羅斯外交政策的影響。 分析結果印證了新古典現實主義的主要假設：俄羅斯在相對物質權力提升的情況下，會同樣地擴大外交政策行動上的野心與版圖。雖然由第一個研究案例可得知，所謂的體系修正因素（如：地理位置、限制/允許因素、和體系明確性）對於俄羅斯介入喬治亞的決策有著重要的影響。而第二個假設提到，「總統普丁選擇設計、校正、調整策略上的選擇，反映文化上可接受的偏好，以維持國內的政治支持度」這個說法也已經被印證。本研究分析顯示，體系因素和個體層次中介變項對於2008年介入喬治亞及2014年併吞克里米亞的決策皆有影響。整體而言，當分析一個國家的外交政策時，新古典現實主義確實是個強而有力的架構，但作者也深知仍有進一步研究的必要。 / This thesis aims at contributing to the debate on the motives and drivers of Russian foreign policy. It uses neoclassical realism as an enhanced research framework which combines systemic stimuli (independent variable) and unit-level intervening variables such as leader images and strategic culture. The work investigates the period from 1991 to 2014 with focus on two case studies, namely the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014. This two case studies use process-tracing method and historiography to test the effect of systemic and unit level factors on the Russian foreign policy. The analysis has confirmed the main neoclassical realist expectation that an increase in the relative material power of the Russian Federation will lead to a corresponding expansion in the ambition and scope of Russian foreign policy activity. Although, especially the first case study showed, that the so called systemic modifiers, such as geography, restrictiveness/permissiveness and systemic clarity had significant effect on the decision to intervene in Georgia. The second hypothesis stating that, “President Putin chooses to frame, adjust, and modify strategic choices to reflect culturally acceptable preferences to maintain domestic political support” was also confirmed. The analysis has shown that both systemic stimuli and unit level intervening variables influenced the final decision to intervene in Georgia in 2008, and to annex Crimea in 2014. Overall, neoclassical realism proved to be enhanced and a useful framework for analyzing foreign policy of a state. But the author is fully aware that a further research is needed.