笨狼發牢騷
發發牢騷，解解悶，消消愁
正文
【如何閱讀長文？可以用微軟二代瀏覽器（Edge）的（中文）文字到語音閱讀功能幫助或輔助閱讀，適當調節朗讀速度（參見哪個瀏覽器（Browser）最好？）】
拜登的民主峰會開頭第一句話就是“在美國，維持我們建國精神所倡導的崇高標準一直是場艱難的奮鬥”，你可以理解成美國建國精神無比高尚，美國一直為民主不停地奮鬥，美國怎麽奮鬥都達不到建國先驅們高標準的要求，美國的民主奮鬥來奮鬥去還不怎麽樣，還可以理解成拜登無比的自信，敢於承認自己的不足，也反映了拜登、美國對將來的信心，那種民主即將戰勝專製的信心，不過，對於對民主峰會背景略【3】有了解的人來說，這場“峰會”雷聲大，卻顯得捉襟見肘，不說別的，光說峰會的三大目標之一，反腐，美國財長姚玲跑到峰會上說，“腐敗了去藏贓物最佳之地全世界非美國莫屬”。
【2】American democracy is an ongoing struggle to live up to our highest ideals and to heal our divisions; to recommit ourselves to the founding idea of our nation captured in our Declaration of Independence, not unlike many of your documents
【3】世界離開美國真的很難轉
美國的民主保得住還是保不住都是問題
via @NYT the humility talk at the Biden Democracy Summit doesn’t come close to the scope and depth of the threat to US democracy https://t.co/ERdy2ztmfx
— Bruce W Jentleson (@BWJ777) December 11, 2021
美國民主危矣
Between the lines: The data signals that for all the legitimate concerns about the rise of clearly autocratic countries like Russia and China, when it comes to democratic decline, the alarm is coming from inside the house.
大多廢話，但這段：
那究竟是過程重要還是結果重要？辯證地來看其實涉及了一個根本問題，那就是我們究竟為什麽需要民主？不管是民主還是其他政治體製，歸根到底隻有一個目標，那就是增進人民的福祉。在這一點上，從建設到抗疫，中國的成就顯然很有說服力和吸引力，這也給西方的理論界帶來一個新的衝擊。從增進人民福祉的角度看，中國的成績確實更為出色，當西方國家達不到中國的高度，那西方式民主究竟價值何在？這是西方的理論界應該要回答的問題。現在中國開始不斷強調“全過程民主”，其實是鞏固了結果後反向爭取過程的話語權，但坦白說，中國式民主的過程和西方對民主過程的共識是不一樣的。以往西方的學術界從沒想過，一個非西方式民主的國家能發展到如此高度，這也是中國的成就所發出的時代之問，西方的理論界有義務提出回應。
拜奴也失望
????????Amazing speech by @SecYellen on the fight against global corruption. Important admission - "The best place to hide and launder ill-gotten gains is the U.S." https://t.co/7BGXDPStzF pic.twitter.com/LxmKBUjVou
— Ian Gary (@Ianpgary) December 9, 2021
你說（美國財長：不讓美成為洗錢避風港 要揭露空殼公司 | www.wenxuecity.com）你自己有魄力，“揭露空殼公司，不讓美成為洗錢避風港”，我說那才是美國腐敗的現實。
2016
2012
2019
the billionaire Sun Hongbin quietly transferred $4.5bn worth of shares in his Chinese real estate firm to a company on a street corner in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
2021
不僅僅是美國，英國也是犯罪洗錢的中心，那正是英國銀行業金融界的特長，一般說來，英語體係的國家以個人為中心，其法律對合約的保護甚至高於對個人的保護
民主峰會說是民主，其實是為了反中【3】，因為美國人對自己的民主並不像拜登所說的那樣在乎【4】
美國和西方民主的首要威脅不是外在的專製，而是內在騷動，自身的反民主傾向
中國愛民主：
美國賓夕法尼亞大學當代中國研究中心研究員馬瑞欣（Neysun Mahboubi）則認為，中國對西方抵製行為表達的憤怒或許也可以看作是好事，“他們至少是在試圖擁抱民主的術語......這在我看來，至少說明了民主製度背後的理念所具有的力量，這顯示出，沒有人想說，我們很驕傲自己不是民主製度。”
尼加拉瓜重新建交的選時肯定是為了打擊美台，確實是一記重拳，傷了台灣的心
"I suspect the price Honduras will be trying to extract from its Taiwanese patrons not to flip just went up significantly," said Ellis at the U.S. Army War College, pointing to Nicaragua
Nonetheless, in the short term, Nicaragua’s change probably means that the price Honduras will be trying to extract from its Taiwanese patrons not to recognize the PRC probably just went up significantly.
產業鏈
不是什麽新的，但說明美國所期望的世貿改革沒那麽簡單
美國是很多專製、集權國家的老大
慘，沒了闖王，全世界都來欺負睡王：
Peter Navarro on Ukraine: "The country itself is not really a country" pic.twitter.com/zVwicaZalh
— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) December 9, 2021
《紐時》大嘴托馬斯·弗裏德曼（Thomas Friedman）曾經這麽說過，以前中國太落後，老賣給美國鍋碗瓢盆，又便宜又好用，我們樂壞了，值，那時即使中國是共產主義或法西斯我們都不在乎，後來中國不知咋的冒出些神妙的東西出來，像5G，我們美國一下子懵了，這還得了，原來中國這麽厲害，這時中國人的精神，意識形態就要緊了，跟我們不一致那我們就隻能打，沒說的，因為現在中國威脅我們了。
西方確實從來沒有人類大同的想法，絕對不容異己
美國極端反華領袖（之一）把與中國決戰作為國策之一，不容忽視的力量
龍永圖：入世時中國的立場是極其清晰的：中國將是一個社會主義市場經濟，而不是“西方”的市場經濟，中國沒有隱瞞，但爭執是在中國到底有沒有履行入世的責任
“The major problem was not that China joined the WTO, but that the U.S. failed to enforce China's commitments even though in China's WTO accession agreement, we included extremely strict and unique enforcement provisions against China,” said Barshefsky.
The sole import safeguard imposed against Chinese imports before the mechanism expired in 2013 was the Obama administration’s 2009 imposition of duties on Chinese tire imports linked to the loss of 5,000 U.S. jobs.
Still, it would not have been in the U.S. interest to block China’s entry to WTO 20 years ago, said Hillman,
“There was no way to say ‘no’ because if the U.S. had said ‘no’ and China had not joined the WTO, it would have probably engaged in a whole series of [trade] agreements that would have had the effect of discriminating against the United States,”
But he cautioned against perceptions that China’s WTO entry has been a universally one-sided losing proposition for U.S. businesses that invested in China and established operations there.
“You can see that the firms who are there today were largely the firms who have been there for the last 20 years and they wouldn't be there if they were not making money,” Broadman said
“We're now at a point where Beijing is clearly in broad violation of its 2001 accession agreement,” Broadman said, proposing three options that China should be given: renegotiate its WTO membership terms, be shown the WTO “exit door,” or immediately execute its promised reforms.
Still, a fundamental problem remains that China sees nothing wrong with its behavior.
“Over the last two decades, China has fully delivered on its [WTO] accession commitments … empowering global development and prosperity,” Chinese Ambassador to the U.S., Qin Gang, said in a speech at the U.S.-China Business Council’s annual gala last week.
But the gaps in the WTO rule book, which was designed for market economies, have become all too obvious. The subsidies disciplines leave a lot of the huge range of Chinese trade-distorting government interventions uncovered. Attempts to bring more of the companies and agencies of state under them have been foiled by the unhelpful definition of a “public body” set down by the WTO’s dispute settlement system.
China has refused to give up its special and differential developing country status.
He declined to say when, or under what conditions, China would cease to consider itself a developing country altogether under WTO rules
如果有條件，要還價，倒是可行
But it ignores the errors of the US, in particular, in sidelining the WTO and China within it.
a relatively sympathetic analysis of China’s experiences in the WTO, to recognise Washington’s own role in bypassing and undermining the institution. The US has systematically barked up a whole forest of wrong trees ever since China joined, wasting political capital, alienating allies and creating expectations on Capitol Hill it couldn’t possibly meet.
高樹超教授現任新加坡管理大學法學院教授
???????? kept Trump’s Phase I agreement with ???????? , while ???????? effectively killed its CAI. ???????? trade with ???????? currently growing faster than ????????’s. Who is making policy on ???????? ? NBA, Wall Street, Hollywood? Europeans don’t see coherence on the other side of the Atlantic. https://t.co/6o1qKOI4MI
— Benjamin Haddad (@benjaminhaddad) December 10, 2021
美媒揭露貿易戰的荒謬、徒勞
今年是中國“入世”20周年，商務部發布的數據顯示，“入世”以來，中國利用外資從2001年的468.8億美元增加到2020年的1443.74億美元
目前，中國是全球最大貨物貿易國，也是全球最大外資流入國，對全球經濟增長的年均貢獻率接近30%，是拉動世界經濟複蘇和增長的重要引擎。
中國在1986年基本上是計劃體製，外貿是高度壟斷，關稅也非常高。歐美國家基本上不同意接受中國以當時的條件來恢複關貿總協定締約國的地位。
在1988年，我們對外貿體製進行了一次改革，采取了總公司分公司經營權脫鉤，實行部分外貿企業的承包經營製，這些改革是分好幾個階段逐步達標的。
1991年，中國外貿繼續進行改革，進一步下放成立一些工貿公司，就是生產企業可以直接申請出口權，當時還有一個審批階段，海關關稅從1992年開始大幅度降低，從43.2%分四個階段降到了17%，這些改革基本上解決了很多製度性和國際多邊規則要求的問題。
1994年，當時的國務院常務副總理朱鎔基親自主持實行了三大改革，即金融體製改革、財稅體製改革和外貿外匯體製改革，也都推動了製度性的開放。
所以曆時15年的的談判可以分成兩部分，一部分是以體製機製的製度性開放為主，另一部分是以市場開放為主的市場準入，兩者都是比較艱難的，前一部分依靠中央國務院下決心推進一些體製機製改革，後一部分需要平衡國內各個工業部門和產業的開放度，比如歐美要求汽車行業開放，我們肯定不同意。
當時談判還涉及一些金融、保險、電信的開放，這些都是我們非常敏感的行業
中國強調以發展中國家資本“入世”，在很多領域做一些過渡性的安排，基本上解決了這些問題。我們通過艱苦談判做出了一些安排，該守的底線也都堅決守住了。
中國市場更加開放，關稅總水平由“入世”前的15.3%，降到目前的7.5%。中國完全履行了“入世”的承諾，進口關稅總水平低於所有發展中成員，接近發達成員水平。
才7.5%？以為更低
在外界看來，歐美認為中國“入世”享受到了關稅補貼，好像中國搭了便車，占了便宜，這種理解是不正確的，因為中國擴大出口的同時，隨著經濟貿易規模的擴大，進口規模也隨之在擴大
不懂
中國在擴大對外貿易方麵，仍大有可為，進出口質量提升的潛力尤其大。在中國對外貿易邁上新台階方麵，世貿組織的保障作用是不可或缺的。往大裏說，世貿組織對中國經濟的持續高質量發展，可以起到一定的保駕護航作用。中國仍像當年那樣需要世貿組織，而且需要的程度並不亞於當年
美歐日世貿組織改革的關鍵訴求是製定“21世紀的貿易規則”。它們認為，世貿組織規則的缺失讓中國鑽了空子，占了它們的便宜。
為此，美歐日圖謀把它們與中國的矛盾喬裝成中國與世界之爭，把中國推到所有成員的對立麵，拉攏、煽動發展中成員，孤立中國。比如，戴琪汙蔑中國的發展是建立在損害美國和其他國家的利益的基礎上的。此外，美歐日還企圖綁架中國，迫使中國為世貿改革買單。它們將世貿組織改革成功與否同中國的立場掛鉤，散布中國的讓步是世貿組織改革的關鍵，以便讓中國承擔世貿組織改革不力的責任。
這些年來，中國加大了對有關外資法律法規的升級力度。但是，在勞工、知識產權、數據流和國有企業等領域，仍需做出重大調整，才能達到 CPTPP 的標準
那是不是意味著中國要改革、升級呢？泛太協定是中國的克星，中國敢到太歲頭上動土，也真夠意思
歐盟目前的平均進口稅仍然高達6%。
市場經濟
社會主義市場經濟是一個偉大創造，社會主義市場經濟中必然會有各種形態的資本，要發揮資本作為生產要素的積極作用，同時有效控製其消極作用。要為資本設置“紅綠燈”，依法加強對資本的有效監管，防止資本野蠻生長。要支持和引導資本規範健康發展，堅持和完善社會主義基本經濟製度，毫不動搖鞏固和發展公有製經濟，毫不動搖鼓勵、支持、引導非公有製經濟發展。
Whether or not China ever surpasses it, the US has been bereaved of its 1990s unipolarity. It copes with the trauma by dwelling on what could have been done about it. If only China had not been waved into the World Trade Organization 20 Decembers ago. If only successive White Houses had not been so credulous in their dealings with Beijing. The recriminations go back to 1949, when, as some Republicans still fancy, the US “lost” China to communism.
西方從來就沒有阻止中國重新崛起的能力（崛起並不一定要“超越美國”），美國和西方隻是在做夢
Second, doing so would have somehow only stymied China, and not the west, even though American and other companies gorged on low-wage labour there ever after.
夢：
If this were just academically wrong, it need not detain us. But there are political consequences to this fantasy. One theme that Donald Trump rode to the White House was that US elites were derelict and even complicit in China’s rise. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama are still held to have sold out industrial America (but not credited for the cheap consumer goods that flowed into many of the same households from a trading China). The premise that a mighty China is some kind of aberration, and not just a regression to the historic mean, props up a lot of US populism.
西方一直處於一種“世界生活在黑暗之中，完全靠我們西方帶來光明”的曆史虛無主義，好像世界其他國家永遠不會覺醒，要求“我們也要過好日子”。崛起，隻是意識到“我們也要過好日子”，不能再靠“王侯將相”
《彭博》的宣傳畫夠厲害
中國積極利用國際組織維護中國自己的利益
美國都有很多人說美國不分青紅皂白動不動就製裁，中國人都麻木了，反正都是死，不如拚了（總結一下））
總能找到一隻替罪羊
美國在東南亞拿不出對策，是因為美國根本沒有能力，這不是中國的問題，也不是美國國內內鬥的問題，而是美國國家現狀所導致的，闖王的美國第一到睡王的美國第一，都是迫於美國的這種現狀，間接承認美國資本主義操縱、壟斷、控製了美國的國家機器，掠奪了美國的主要利益，美國資本跟中國國家資本主義不謀而合，是美國衰退的主要因素之一，而美國賴以解決一切問題的軍工產業，同時又成了美國養蠱自噬的另一因數
The speech in Jakarta broke little new ground, said analysts, but they felt it might bolster US credibility in the region after the volatility of Donald Trump’s administration
安倍一而再再而三
貿易，數據
高樹超教授現任新加坡管理大學法學院教授
沒有中國，亞馬遜狗屁不是
美國顛覆中國的聲音
美國人的無情
Despite piles of studies, books, the congressional testimony of on-scene FBI Special Agent Ali Soufan and a 6,700-page Senate Intelligence Committee report that found CIA interrogation program ineffective at best and dissembling at worst, the pro-torture consensus has hardly budged
整個世界充滿殘酷、無情，誰被推上新聞，往往在於誰控製著媒體
媒體自由不自由，都是次要的，因為每個人每天就那麽點時間，能關注什麽，就看媒體選擇，如果（西方）媒體媒體都忙著踩中國，那麽中國自然就是獨一無二的惡魔了
整個體製地腐敗
殘忍才是目的，主要是指美國內部的
但比較起來中國曆史上的自相殘殺，最近的明末暴動（李自成張獻忠），太平天國，軍閥混戰，國共內戰，大躍進文革，美國是不是沒什麽？
這是一個感官上的二律背反，主要的矛盾是時代的發展和美國，美國人的本質背道而馳，同時更與美國的宣傳背道而馳
第一：
第二：
大外宣，話語權
捉賊捉贓，捉奸捉雙
美升中降？
黨的十八大以來，習近平總書記反複強調，“實現中華民族偉大複興，堅持和發展中國特色社會主義，關鍵在黨，關鍵在人，歸根到底在培養造就一代又一代可靠接班人”。
美國的金燦榮：
（參見下麵烏克蘭那部分）
（經典）
“I believe that the ultimate joining of Taiwan and China, the ultimate creation of one China, is the objective of Chinese policy,” Kissinger told Zakaria, “as it has been since the creation of the current regime and that it probably would be in any Chinese government since Taiwan has been considered a historic part of China that was taken away by Japan, by force. That was exactly the situation Nixon and I faced when we first began contact with China.“
中國的野心
坎布爾
美國正在尋機與中國開戰
美國為什麽急著要在東盟推銷“數字條約”？
“非常強而有力”的亞洲經濟協議，聚焦供應鏈協調、出口管製及人工智能（AI）標準等三大領域
focusing on areas including coordination on supply chains, export controls and standards for artificial intelligence
The framework will be “flexible,” with some countries perhaps not signing up to all of the elements, Raimondo said. She said the aim is to engage not just developed nations such as Japan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand but also emerging economies such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand.
原中央黨史研究室副主任章百家在三亞論壇上告誡不可對賭美國衰落、警惕向內轉向的趨勢，強調美國具有強大自我調節能力。
談及外交時，章百家說中國需要恢複務實外交，“跟做股市一樣，新一代外交官是牛市中成長的，遇到熊市怎麽做？老一代是從熊市中一點一點做出來的。”
談及外交時，章百家說中國需要恢複務實外交，“跟做股市一樣，新一代外交官是牛市中成長的，遇到熊市怎麽做？老一代是從熊市中一點一點做出來的。”
收入、財富，10%，1%，0.1%
托馬斯·皮凱蒂（Thomas Piketty）
Key lesson 2: women's labor income share is far below 50% in every world region; at the global level in 2020 women's share is about 35% (vs 65% for men); it has been rising since 2000 (33% for women, 67% for men), but the progress is very slow, and even negative in some regions pic.twitter.com/hrmb3kbuW0
— Thomas Piketty (@PikettyLeMonde) December 7, 2021
沒跟上時代的，大概不知道什麽是元宇宙（Metaverse），那是不久的將來人類將放棄.不久前，有匿名者花費了65萬（美元）“購買”了一艘在元宇宙裏的豪華遊艇，如果全世界都超度，進入元宇宙，出租一次10美元，7萬個人租一次就回本了
合法逃避
《紐約客》The Cost of Sentimentalizing War
Has the American myth of the Good War helped ensnare us in bad ones?
Has the American myth of the Good War helped ensnare us in bad ones?
拜登真的停止使用無人機暗殺了？
附在其中的怪圖：
這個：
澳大利亞智庫，如大家所嘀咕那般，已被軍工收買了
補充
The public has been moving in a more hawkish direction for some time. Surveys show that the diet of propaganda has had an effect in making the public at least nominally more supportive of sending U.S. forces to fight for countries where the U.S. has no vital interests, including Taiwan and Ukraine. The numbers vary depending on the survey, but support for intervention in all cases is trending upwards. That is not a response to “new facts,” but something is changing because political leaders and media outlets are driving public opinion in this direction. Public opinion doesn’t just “turn hawkish.” It is shaped to become so.
老大哥
政治
民主黨的危機
人物
曆史
宋朝的家族係統如何加強了國家建造
經濟
魏玲靈的線路神通
A senior gov adviser told me the government will “make a big effort to stabilize growth” next year
The PBOC doesn’t want to ease because whenever they do, the money just flows into property. But they may have little choice. Credit expansion will have to pick up especially if the GDP growth rate for 2022 is set above 5% — with private investment down
全世界人民團結起來，躺平
歐洲
"The importance of the Chinese economy is much bigger for the EU than it is for the US" @WeyandSabine says when pressed about where US-EU interests do not fully align @ecfr pic.twitter.com/AB7RsWYcVb
— Noah Barkin (@noahbarkin) December 9, 2021
產業鏈
技術封鎖
哈佛說中國關鍵技術上能在2030年左右超過美國
原來出自這個
全文
央行2021年9月出版的“2020年中國金融穩定報告”
國際金融危機以來，我國宏觀杠杆率整體呈上升趨勢，由2008年末的143.1%上升至2016年末的248.6%，上升了近105.5個百分點。2017—2019年，宏觀杠杆率總體穩定在250%左右，年均上漲2.0個百分點，低於2008年末至2016年末年均13.2個百分點的增幅，為全力支持抗擊百年不遇的新冠肺炎疫情創造了政策空間。
2020年，受新冠肺炎疫情衝擊影響，我國宏觀杠杆率出現階段性上升。初步測算，2020年末我國宏觀杠杆率為279.4%，比上年末高23.5個百分點。（根據國際清算銀行 （BIS）數據，2020年末美國（296.1%）、日 本（418.9%）杠杆率分別比上年末上升42.8和 40.6個百分點，明顯高於我國同期26.6個百分 點（BIS口徑）的增幅。）當前省級政府在竭力控製債務規模，因為債務繼續無限上擴財政每年支出的利息太多，“實際上每年財政的錢都在還利息，而且經濟不發達的省份和地區，連利息也已經還不起。”
還有一點是現在的利息負擔非常大，中國大概有 260萬億的債務，每年的利息負擔
對企業和金融部門都是非常大的，而且部分地區的債務風險很大。在這樣的環境下，如
果說需求不足怎麽辦？接下來主要靠什麽？靠貨幣政策，靠貨幣信貸工具。這意味著我
們的市場流動性在未來相當長的時間內相對會比較友好
對企業和金融部門都是非常大的，而且部分地區的債務風險很大。在這樣的環境下，如
果說需求不足怎麽辦？接下來主要靠什麽？靠貨幣政策，靠貨幣信貸工具。這意味著我
們的市場流動性在未來相當長的時間內相對會比較友好
260*5%=13
德國新政府和對華政策
Not a surprise that Scholz wants to continue Merkel’s China policy. But sending this message to Xi before even taking office & promising to keep his coalition partners in check - as this story suggests - that would be something https://t.co/rgif8aQgnK
— Noah Barkin (@noahbarkin) December 5, 2021
Olaf Scholz is already on a collision course with his two coalition partners: The coalition agreement writes down a departure from the previous China course, but Scholz probably wants continuity（默克爾背後做思想工作）
原因：所以，德國政府麵臨的挑戰是巨大的。除去自身的努力不論，德國在一個全球化的背景下為了實現所期望的進步，最不需要的可能就是外部環境的幹擾。
德國自己忙不過來，這不通吧？
協議一共15次明確提到中國，僅次於“歐洲”，而多於“美國”和“俄羅斯”，這並不能說明中國對德國有壓倒一切的重要性
德國未來的執政黨更加強化了對中國“三個角色”的定位，即中國同時是德國的夥伴、競爭者和製度性對手。
德國未來由三黨聯合執政，這是一個相當微妙的內政格局，即真正主導組閣、出任聯邦總理的社會民主黨必須要強調與其他兩個相對較小的政黨的“平等地位”：大可不必把這份聯合執政協議裏麵的涉華表述等同於德國新政府未來的對華政策
她會在德國外交部長的崗位上了解到，德國的外交傳統以一致性和延續性為世人所稱道，這是一種超脫黨爭、符合國家整體利益的立場
In practice, there might be more coalition unity than that, and more continuity with Merkel. The German Greens in the Bundestag are actually quite pragmatic about relations with business: Mikko Huotari, executive director of the Merics think-tank, points out that they have a record at state level of supporting Germany’s export industry. The big industrial players such as Volkswagen are anyway pretty good at promoting their interests no matter who is in government. In any case, Olaf Scholz’s chancellery will no doubt retain a big say in trade policy.
The most interesting part is the overall context. With disillusionment setting in within the German public and businesses about dealing with China, German policy has been drifting towards a mindset sceptical of traditional trade deals that are focused purely on access to export markets.
(“We don’t want everything different, but we want to do a lot better.”). His quote reflects an instinctive respect for consensus, given that the German electorate has placed a coalition government in power for the entire postwar period.
Bütikofer argues that an emergent China-sceptic consensus is aligning the German business, human rights and national security communities.
顯然是“責任全在對方”，隻說中國製裁，不說首先是歐盟製裁
the mess we’re seeing in supply chains is down to a huge shift in demand, away from services and towards consumer durables全球現象
中國
China's Economic Model Is Probably Broken - Bloomberg（China Looks a Lot Like Japan Did in the 1980s）
恒大
土地出售大幅下降
圍追堵截
美國軍事計劃是不是從來就沒戲？利益集團太多
胖子裏歐
Competition Without Catastrophe：How America Can Both Challenge and Coexist With China
奇聞趣事
【】As China Speeds Up Nuclear Arms Race, the U.S. Wants to Talk - The New York Times（中國擴大核能力之際，拜登尋求展開軍控對話 - 紐約時報中文網）
Mr. Biden’s aides are driven by concern that a new arms race is heating up over hypersonic weapons, space arms and cyberweapons, all of which could unleash a costly and destabilizing spiral of move and countermove. The fear is that an attack that blinded space satellites or command-and-control systems could quickly escalate, in ways that were not imaginable in the nuclear competitions of the Cold War
When the Chinese launched a hypersonic missile in July, circling the globe once and then deploying a maneuverable glide vehicle that could zig and zag on an unpredictable path and deliver a weapon anywhere on earth, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that the U.S. was “very close” to a “Sputnik moment.”
“Why are they building all of this capability?” he asked on CBS News. While it is not clear what Chinese strategists intend, he said, the hypersonic glide vehicle appears to be “a first-use weapon.”
It is possible, many arms control experts say, that the Chinese buildup is motivated by the deployment of U.S. missile defenses in the Pacific — land-based systems in California, Alaska, Guam and South Korea, and aboard ships patrolling off Japan and the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. has always insisted that these systems are designed to deter North Korea. But the Chinese government has long voiced worries that North Korea’s nuclear program provides a convenient excuse for the United States to build a system aimed at containing Chinese nuclear weapons
【遊兵散將
美國的行為很難從一個角度來描述，例如美國對華戰略決策主要策劃者坎貝爾（）昨天剛剛在澳大利亞一個智庫和大家交流，說美國帶來澳大利亞的亞洲兄弟在對抗中國霸權時多麽英明、堅定，但澳大利亞少數人也酸酸地意識到美國另一邊毫不隱瞞自己和中國在非核心領域大搞關係
【不僅僅沒被邀請的“有意見”，被邀請的是不是得跟沒被邀請的劃清界限？大家是不是都得看美國眼色行事？】
we're trapped in the inflexible legal-moralism of our post-Cold War mindset
中國疫情管控政策，西方都擔心啊
西方比中國還擔心清零：
2022.02.07
中國難以開放
補充
看看這個例子。
外來的貨船要在海上等兩周才能進港卸貨，中國船員也得隔離三周才能上岸，上岸後再在碼頭隔離兩周，回家後又兩周，一年兩個月就這樣沒了。這怎麽能說是最小代價呢？不顧個人損失，對國家經濟也是一個打擊。
關於暫停跨省團隊旅遊活動的通知 部門文件 內蒙古自治區文化和旅遊廳 (nmg.gov.cn)
西方對“東方”的敵視是本能的
because an inert government is the next best thing to no government at all
come to dominate in a new age of robber barons in America=中國政府的攻擊
For the first time in our history, there was not a peaceful transfer of power following a U.S. presidential election.
It is hard to be optimistic about the future of such a divided America. We will be weakened. We will be diminished. Our divisions will become ever greater impediments to progress. And so will begin the precipitous decline of the United States. We will not be the shining city on the Hill anymore or the last best hope of the world. We will not even be able to stand up to the growing global threats that we face.
連《經濟學人》都說拜登當局此舉，是偽善，自己給自己打臉
Biden has framed America’s great power competition with China and Russia as a battle between democracy and autocracy. Most of the world’s poor, and an increasing share of those living in the west, pay little attention to such abstractions. What will move people in continents such as Africa is material improvements to their lives
今天，美國墮胎權被取締
We’ll find out by June.等什麽，結局已經定了
"There is so much that is not in the Constitution, including the fact that we have the last word." -Sonia Sotomayor
— Samuel Moyn ???? (@samuelmoyn) December 1, 2021
【12】世界離開美國真的很難轉
【普京在給習近平上台灣課】
如果你需要對這個世界，對這個美國一定要稱霸的世界有個什麽基本認識，是這個：
Not just pundits and not just Russia. This is the assumption underlying virtually all of US foreign policy. https://t.co/YB8ocb9ymZ
— John Glaser (@jwcglaser) December 31, 2021
翻譯了，就是“給美國整個外交政策做基礎的準則，是‘美國是好人，與美國作對的，是壞人’”。
你怎麽理解呢？美國人覺得自己的出發點是“普世價值”，價值代表善良、正義、公平【1：凡是美國誤殺了你，那是意外】，自然是好人，你有意見，自然是壞人。因為我們美國人是好人，拿著刀槍到你家門口，是看得起你，你居然敢有意見。
實際上，世界上很多人確實眼巴巴在求美國大兵登陸，如香港“民運”，
美國人的心態
北約一直在擴張，現在美國人卻覺得俄國的警覺是無理取鬧，
Sure, Washington can sanction bad actors, reinforce internet security, harden weak points in infrastructure, and call out election interference. But will those measures deter a power intent on fomenting civil war, as Russia is doing at this very moment in the Balkans?
美國自己一直是這類挑釁行為的主力，但他們自己一點也沒覺得自己的行為（如網侵）有任何問題，相反，別人的則都是違反了“規則為基礎的國際秩序”，對俄羅斯不久前的網侵動用製裁，是激怒普京的因數之一
當然，此文提到的，是領土，比較嚴重，但其口氣是一副衛道士的姿態
China has spread, unchecked, into the South China Sea and Hong Kong wtf
Danielle Pletka is a distinguished senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute可以理解
美國從來就不理解別人為什麽在普世價值麵前不舒服
美國歐洲根本就不了解普京，把普京“蘇聯夢”當真
凱南會怎麽想呢？俄國和美國其實一樣，也覺得自己是大國，大國就得有大國的氣派，當美國將之視為“二等國家”的時候，俄國的自尊心就傷了，跟中國、習近平“新時代大國關係”一樣，被奧巴馬否認，那是美國以一種“高高在上”的姿態，一副蔑視的態度，連對方的合法性都予以否認的態度，誰聽了，不僅僅是傷了，肯定是惱羞成怒
俄國自己的勢力圈，在俄國極有民意，北約
Kennan recognized this from the start. In 1998, when the US Senate ratified NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, he predicted that Russia would “gradually react quite adversely,” and the West would claim that is just “how the Russians are.”
the West has consistently dismissed the Kremlin’s security concerns relating to ex-Soviet countries and portrayed Russian resistance to NATO’s eastward expansion as paranoid revanchism
Volodymyr Zelensky, dons fatigues and praises the military, or presses for a firm commitment on the country’s NATO membership, ordinary Russians get the message that there is a security threat on the border – and it is not the Russian troops
蔑視、仇視，詆毀普京，把普京視為曆史小醜
現狀
按照美國的說法，俄國三麵包圍：
誰的過錯？（事件簡史）
有價值嗎？美國加碼，烏克蘭助推
那又是哪門子瞎扯？
Along with the economic ramifications mentioned on the call, Sullivan said Biden relayed that the US is prepared to bolster defense capabilities in the region
if...the United States and our European allies would respond with strong economic measures
俄方：
"In response, Vladimir Putin stressed that the responsibility should not be shifted onto the shoulders of Russia, since it is NATO that is making dangerous attempts to conquer Ukrainian territory and is building up its military potential at our borders," the Kremlin statement said. "Therefore, Russia is seriously interested in obtaining reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia."
Although the Kremlin said that Mr. Biden agreed to continue discussing Mr. Putin’s demands, U.S. officials rejected Mr. Putin’s analysis of the situation and said they would never make promises about possible NATO expansions.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia rebuffed President Biden’s concerns about Russia’s troop buildup near Ukraine, telling his American counterpart that it was the West that was raising military tensions in the region by increasing its “military potential near our borders,” the Kremlin said.
英法反應甚至比美國還強，是個教訓
拜登公開說“不派美軍”是一種退讓
烏克蘭不讓：
東歐不高興了，美國就是大兵
看看美聯社這個報道的標題“拜登支持烏克蘭”，內容卻是“美國告知烏克蘭10年內不會考慮北約會員資格”
One is Biden’s administration attempting a more assertive policy towards Russia aimed at achieving tangible outcomes for Ukraine. The other is Putin’s easily predictable heavy-handed response and complete intransigence.
美國引起的
德國新政府還對北溪2號翻案，找死。但拜登向默克爾讓步同時，威逼默克爾答應，一旦俄國入侵烏克蘭，德國隻能關閉北溪2號
拜登：get concessions from Putin on key elements of Minsk, get Germany and others on board with regards to Ukraine’s NATO membership action plan or derail NS2，還是要逼殺俄國，從明斯克協議撤出
烏克蘭總統變卦，也是因為國內民族主義情緒高漲，反俄氣氛嚴重。總統原來是打算跟俄國和談的，社會也有這個意願，但軍方和極端分子不幹。
阿塞拜疆-亞美尼亞戰爭，阿塞拜疆通過土耳其無人機打敗阿美尼亞，美國鷹派馬上開始鼓動烏克蘭
2020年底，親俄的一個黨在烏克蘭占了上風，本來普京可以等，但2021年2月開始在邊境集結部隊
烏總統澤連斯基原來是川普的傀儡，現在拜登上台，馬上有了新的策略，關閉反對黨的電視台，迫害反對黨領袖，那是得到明斯克協議保護的，這對普京來說就是違反條約（反對黨是親俄的），這是對西方普世價值的嘲笑
烏總統澤連斯基馬上向拜登申請北約會員
澤連斯基公開邀請北約到烏克蘭練兵，實質上是示威
北約鷹派馬上附和
It is safe to say that up until now Biden administration has been following this strategy, or something along these lines
美國是始作蛹者，在北溪2號向德國讓步老大不情願
Within a week, Russia begins deploying dozens of thousands of troops close to the Ukrainian border
俄國是被動回應美國的挑釁，而不是
這一交鋒的結果是拜普峰會，美國什麽也沒得到，俄國象征性撤軍
拜登的策略是等德國綠黨當選，綠黨領袖，現任外長的貝爾伯克反俄反中，正是拜登等待的盟友，可惜綠黨沒上去。北溪2號一直是一張牌
Worth reminding that US opposition to NS2 is partly driven by the interests of US gas exporters,
And how likely is it that he would invade Ukraine after NS2 is up and running?
is a mighty dangerous energy weapon, which would allow Putin to suffocate Ukrainian economy without any invasions.
Nevertheless, on Oct 26 Ukraine used a Bayraktar drone for the first time to destroy a piece of artillery on the separatist side
烏克蘭總統管不住軍方、情報部門，壓不住反對派，民意也不牢固
At the end of October, USS Porter entered the Black Sea, followed by USS Mount Whitney. You could feel from TASS and RIA posts at that time, how alarmed the Russians were about the prospect of another freedom of navigation operation, along the lines of HMS Defender’s
美國、北約對“行駛自己的權力”理所當然，完全不考慮對方，這麽狠，才是逼瘋普京的原因，中國也一樣
12.21
普京前幾天爆發
"It is extremely alarming that elements of the US global defense system are being deployed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching the Tomahawk cruise missiles."
"If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security."
烏克蘭
美國少數克製派也鼓吹這個
芬蘭也變了？
據說沒有群眾基礎（Daniel Larison）
習近平普京交流後：
美、北約還是不敢真的打
不會馬上開打
Russia does not want an armed conflict with Ukraine, but will continue to take steps to defend itself, Moscow’s top diplomat has said, as Kiev claims Moscow could order an offensive against its neighbor
據路透社、俄羅斯塔斯社當地時間12月21日報道，普京曾在當天的國防部會議上警告，在烏克蘭衝突問題上，由於北約“步步緊逼”的擴張，俄國已經“退無可退”。如果西方繼續“侵略行為”，俄方準備采取“適當的軍事軍事措施”來回應。
中俄聯盟？
美國和西方一直不相信中俄之間會有聯盟，因為不可能，兩者潛在分歧遠多於共同之處，還有曆史包袱，中俄也一直不承認彼此之間是個聯盟，尤其是中國還是堅持不結盟，俄國和普京非常清楚俄國在兩國關係中是處於次要地位，因為數字在哪兒，沒法比，但中國要求美國以大國身份對待中國，中國也就以大國身份對待俄國，這點估計普京很愜意、滿足，中俄都有要求美國以同等身份對待的要求，但美國非要以單極姿態，高高在上，令人不舒服，這不僅僅是傲慢，而且影響到一個國家的合法性，美國恰恰有否認中俄政府合法性的意圖，從旁觀者來看，美國是主動要去製造敵人，這是不是妥當，就看你怎麽想。
冷戰結束前後，美國到老布什那一代的戰略家，是絕對不會這麽做的，極度狂妄才有這種冒進，但他們都進了棺材（基辛格還活著，但隻是被供奉起來，沒人理他），新一代有新一代的想法，世界觀。
2014年克裏米亞事件之後，俄國就被孤立，被西方排擠，一步步越來越緊，空間越來越小，俄國隻能向東尋求支持，經過那麽多年，不僅僅普京本人，而且一直有抵製中國的俄羅斯統治階層和精英也慢慢接受中國了，這是一個重要的轉變，雖然俄國中產並沒有做出同樣程度的轉變，但他們至少接受了中國，這已經足以讓俄國整個國家有和中國站到一起的基礎，不論這是不是聯盟，但彼此已經把自己和對方的利益看成息息相關，也許中俄還不到軍事聯盟的程度，但已經有了一種一方會成為另一方戰略後方的感覺。
這一切，自然拜托美國、西方對兩國打擊圍堵的功勞。
中俄兩國近來頻頻舉行軍事演習，這是在沒有實戰的情況下最佳
Western officials and defense experts are growing more convinced of the closer relationship based on recent economic alliances, military exercises and joint defense development
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that Beijing and Moscow are now more aligned than at any point in the past 60 years.
美國近來不得不承認中俄關係已經緊密到威脅美國的地步，但還是不相信軍事聯盟
watching closely but caution against reading too much into actions unlikely to flower into a full military alliance.
U.S. steps to contain the two countries have driven them into a marriage of convenience, giving the previously contentious rivals an incentive to marshal resources and intelligence against a common adversary
美國的思維並沒有變
“The conversation first was that Russia and China are not going to align,” said Mr. Kofman, the Russian military expert. “Then the conversation was, it appears there’s an alignment, but it’s not very significant. Then it evolved to, there’s an alignment, and it is significant, but it probably won’t last. And that conversation is now evolving into the next stage.”
一直拒絕承認現實
China ordered Russian-made Su-35 jet fighters, which enhanced Beijing’s ability to strike U.S. warships. The U.S. sanctioned China for these deals.
我們都忘了
中國的基本工業品和中高端零部件和俄羅斯的能源、糧食有互補關係
One idea to divide the two countries is for the U.S. to soften its approach to Russia and draw Moscow away from Beijing. But such a strategy remains embryonic, according to analysts, especially when the U.S. appears disinclined to offer the kind of political and economic incentives that would persuade Mr. Putin to loosen ties with Mr. Xi.
美國離不開蔑視中俄之間的“權宜關係”
【本文由“披靡”推薦，來自《科索沃驅逐聯合國特派團1名俄籍成員，俄羅斯：挑釁》評論區，標題為小編添加】
亂七八糟
普京（背景）
俄國不同政見者，反普京（Lilia Shevtsova）
清一色數落普京，依據不提美國、西方、北約的緊逼，原因，出發點都是同一個：正義無邊界，代表正義的西方不軍隊派到你家門口也是為了和平，為了你好，隻有“壞蛋”才心虛
詆毀：普京的外交內政是一致的，彼此相互強化，相互
跟中國民運是一個想法，為了推翻中國政府，不擇手段，不計較真假
與台灣的對比
吃軟不吃硬
主戰派覺得普京在詐唬：Russia is not planning to invade Ukraine，American Enterprise Institute混蛋，這幫人到處都是
因為代價太大，根本不了解“人”，台灣也一樣
SWIFT
北約“團結了”？沒錯，烏克蘭更難對付了，但如twitter說的，你是要打到最後一個烏克蘭人嗎？把烏克蘭弄成阿富汗，但俄國難道會“允許”嗎？
U.S. has the moral and mathematical advantage of arguing against strong states imposing their will on those unable to protect themselves.玩笑
大家根本不把普京當真
勿謂言之不預也
“The two texts are not written according to the principle of a menu, where you can choose one or the other, they complement each other and should be considered as a whole,” declared Deputy Foreign Minister
俄國媒體成了小粉紅？are already triumphant: “The world before and the world after December 17, 2021 are completely different worlds
Either ... or they face a military-technical alternative說死了 the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike.”
俄國國內的宣傳也是把自己置於死地而後生，背水一戰的感覺
Reading the Western press, one is under the impression that nothing is happening
Russia and the United States commit themselves not to deploy nuclear weapons abroad and to withdraw those already deployed, as well as to eliminate nuclear weapons deployment infrastructure outside their territory. Article 4 states, in part, that “the Russian Federation and all participants which were, as of 27 May 1997, member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, shall not deploy their armed forces and armaments on the territory of any other European state in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997.”
基本上讓北約解散，表麵上美國根本不可能接受的，但俄國提出來了
In short, “the Russian initiative could help the Americans to quietly leave Central and Eastern Europe,” according to the headline of
The same is true of Japan, for which acceptance of the Treaty clauses means the de-occupation and liquidation of American bases…”挑戰美國全球地位，嗬嗬
And what is Russia offering in exchange for all the concessions demanded of the West? ... Nothing of the sort. In return, it says it is ready… to commit itself not to threaten American security.
笑死：In a word, Russia is demanding that NATO commit suicide, and that the United States be reduced to the role of a regional power.
精神病，瘋子
Why this Russian ultimatum?
As always, Russian behavior is dictated by a careful analysis of the “correlation of forces”俄國是不是考慮，算上了中國？
Huge reserves have been accumulated, including gold大家覺得俄國備戰已經準備好了
另一處讀到：普京這幾年確實嚐膽臥薪，整頓俄國財政，油價也讓俄國儲備大增，把經費調到軍方，大為改善
If Russia and China coordinate their actions against Ukraine and Taiwan respectively, “everything will become much easier for us. And for China too, from which we will divert attention, which will free our hands even more…”
臥槽，俄國比中國瘋多了，“中俄聯手把美帝踢出曆史舞台的時機到了”
“This is not a proposal for discussion, but an ultimatum — a demand for unconditional surrender. The West has no choice but to lose face
瘋了： “we can solve the problem of neutralizing Europe and the United States only by physically eliminating them with our nuclear potential
不過：
The trigger for the Kremlin was the misguided policy of the White House which, after the debacle in Afghanistan, multiplied the number of emissaries to Moscow this autumn, making the weakness of the United States even more obvious in Putin’s eyes: “Senior American officials have made frequent trips to Moscow. The visit of CIA Director William Burns in November was the fourth visit of a senior White House official since the Geneva meeting. It is not difficult to guess that the purpose of the CIA director’s personal visit was not at all to make demands about Ukraine, as the Western media tried to have itt, but to try to find a compromise. Faced with the collapse of international authority due to the unsuccessful withdrawal from Afghanistan, the White House was eager to find a deal with the Kremlin.”
Burns has always advocated the refusal to expand NATO eastward.” Burns’ visit was interpreted in Moscow as an indication that the policy of appeasement
然而，這一切都是謊言：
What Moscow fears in Ukraine is not a few NATO instructors, but freedom.
普京（和習近平一樣）害怕民主、自由，肯定會把專製使用到他控製的任何地方，包括俄國國外
俄國老百姓都被“洗腦”了（也許確實如此，但西方也是如此），大家信普京
Very often the best policy with Russia is that of silence and distance: do nothing, say nothing and stand your ground
這是瞎扯
The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow’s fifth column in Europe. This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security.
Françoise Thom
Historian, emeritus lecturer at the University of Paris Sorbonne
然而你得問難道普京和其他俄國人都是瘋子，傻子，精神病，這是老鼠要在毛脖子上係上鈴子來製住貓的把戲，怎麽可能有用？或者難道普京身邊都是一群哈巴狗，普京自己也傻到居然相信這種鬼話（有人說習近平的處境也差不多）。
或者說，普京這是一：把自己逼入死路，沒法退，退則在曆史麵前成為狗屎，二：故意把開出明知對方無法兌現的價，目的是打，也就是說堂堂皇皇找個借口，還是要打，除非對方投降。可這打又有什麽好處呢？沒法占領烏克蘭，那是一個泥潭，到了烏克蘭人不怕死，多死也要殺俄羅斯人的地步，俄軍的傷亡也就失控。
然而，普京也不是吃素的，普京明顯是要離間，公開把歐盟視為二等公民，這是事實，也是指出歐盟的痛腳，故意讓歐盟丟臉，而且向歐盟挑明，你們不是要獨立於美國嗎？知道你們假的，就是揭短，看你們有沒有膽量
2022.01.10
普京就是有資格能耐隻跟美國談，把歐盟晾在一邊，德法都紛紛邀請和俄國單獨談
不過表麵上美國還是處處強調“美國和盟友在一起”，用以團結大家
麵子
拜登把自己執政的招牌稱之為“民主與專製的較量”，自己要站起來與之鬥爭，現在普京一個強硬，拜登就軟了
US president promised to reverse his predecessor’s policies, but instead will negotiate with the Kremlin
For Biden, the showdown with Putin presents a particularly thorny challenge, one that pits his long-stated goal of aggressively confronting foreign autocrats — a sharp reversal, his team argues, of his predecessor’s tendency to coddle them — with the more practical aim of avoiding a war.
共和黨攻擊
兩黨
好戰派
烏克蘭不是美國的核心利益。
2008年北約向烏克蘭許諾，運行它成為會員，但沒有時間，據說此舉遭到大部分成員反對，但被小布什否決
美國和北約把遏製俄羅斯當成第一目的，自然否決了俄羅斯生存空間的要求，這一當前對抗的主要原因。
“If, in fact, he invades Ukraine, there will be severe consequences — severe consequences — and economic consequences like none he’s ever seen or ever have been seen,” Mr. Biden said.
he “increasingly views Ukraine as a Western aircraft carrier parked just across from Rostov Oblast in southern Russia,” wrote Eugene Rumer and Andrew S. Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment中俄遇到的處境相似，台灣和烏克蘭都不願意回歸，不回歸就成了敵人，那怎麽辦？自己“製度”能“變天”來適應一個“小國”嗎？
She said the intelligence community recommended against offering a membership path to Ukraine and Georgia, because much of NATO opposed it, but it was overridden by Mr. Bush.
美國霸權主義者永遠也不會接受任何挑戰，也永遠不會承認美國為了維護霸權對自己造成的損害
鷹派：寧願開戰也也跟普京幹到底
（對比台灣）普京為什麽這麽幹？是覺得烏克蘭越來越向西方靠近，控製烏克蘭的機會越來越渺茫，還是美國在跟中國決戰之際分不出身來，是個好時機，美國可能被迫讓步，或者為了轉移視線，用外敵來掩蓋國內的矛盾？（普京民意下跌，選舉結果不佳，反對聲音加大）
1975 Helsinki agreement on security and cooperation in Europe—signed by Moscow—which said European states have the right to belong to any international alliance they choose俄國已經不是蘇聯了
In the best case, Mr. Putin is forced to back down, losing face domestically and internationally作者不覺得西方有什麽值得示弱的
但作者並不是要北約與俄國開戰，他不擔心的，是烏克蘭跟俄國開戰，死的人是烏俄，不是西方，一旦開戰，西方可以更加嚴厲地“懲罰”俄國，普京得不償失。他沒覺得俄國已經一身製裁勳章了，再製裁也
The seemingly impetuous Mr. Putin has maneuvered his way into a strategically risky position, and the West ought to leverage the Kremlin’s mistake and drive a hard bargain in any diplomacy滿嘴蔑視但拿不出辦法來
美國歐洲反複說的，隻是“製裁”，而不是武力還擊
Europe is in the grip of an energy crisis with low reserves. And with Russia supplying some 40% of the European Union's gas imports, the Kremlin has already shown its ability to checkmate the West's harshest sanctions by limiting production and potentially triggering rolling blackouts across the continent
Without firing a shot, Putin has managed to send the West into a collective panic
feel the need to appease
Another land grab would add俄國並不一定要占地，占領烏克蘭後果難以預料，但摧毀烏克蘭武裝力量則可以威懾烏，給北約真把紅線畫出來
作者顯然是鷹派，主戰
as recently as Thursday, European leaders were responding to Putin's bullying tactics and intimidation by trying to nudge him toward the bargaining table.投降？不堪忍受
whatever it takes short of direct military conflict基本上是分割開來
此文被理智派和反戰派譏諷，但不但代表至少一部分主流，還很有市場
We have to arm Ukraine—and pretend it is an ally?—to defend Taiwan
西方鷹派：保烏克蘭就像保台灣，你軟，中國就知道你的底線
攻擊拜登，逼拜登硬上弓
打！
打！
According to this piece, a Russian offensive in Ukraine would cause the "rules-based international order" to collapse into world war
All in all, the Kremlin should be satisfied with the impact of its expectedly menacing response to Biden’s attempt at pushing Putin’s red lines at the beginning of the year. But the issue of Medvedchuk remains.
軟了
Applebaum is mad
The U.S. Is Naive About Russia. Ukraine Can’t Afford to Be
不久前說過西方媒體是國家投資集團的一部分，絕對不是什麽“獨立的聲音”，“《華郵》社論組比《華爾街日報》那麽右的筆杆子凶得多，極右，極端，不僅僅處處恨中國，而且是美國軍國主義、霸權的吹鼓手”，
A brutal dictator, having staked a claim to power based on conspiracy theories and promises of imperial restoration, rebuilds his military. He begins threatening to seize his neighbors’ territory, blames democracies for the crisis and demands that, to solve it, they must rewrite the rules of international politics — and redraw the map — to suit him. The democracies agree to peace talks, hoping, as they must, to avoid war without unduly rewarding aggression
《華郵》把當今比作慕尼黑事件，強調美國西方不能有綏靖的幻想，不能退讓那就是開戰了，無獨有偶，這也是《金融時報》的立場：
絕對不能縱容挑釁（《金融時報》沒那麽極端）
其實你想想，覺得有意思，俄國開條件，就是訛詐，不能接受，美國先行把製裁恐嚇手段亮出來，就是“回應”，常理
你要是把當前的緊張局勢的首要責任歸咎於普京，這也是合情理的，如果還沒談判就讓步，也確實沒法談，因為那就是投降了，但如果雙方都不讓步，那麽結果就更加敵對，這會對地緣政治造成連鎖性反應，第一是固定了東西聯盟的對立：俄中，美歐。談判桌上的人會做出什麽樣的分析和選擇？
然而，這種對策論方麵的考慮是當你在談判桌上麵對對手時所做的分析，但是正如在其他地方我們分心過，俄國和普之所以采用如此極端的手段，那是他們在談判桌上坐下來之前已經做了一個判斷，俄國再也無路可退，俄國的根本利益已經被逼得無路可走
俄國的動機、目標不明
How Did We Get Here?
俄國說烏克蘭和其他國家不能加入北約，但普京習近平都有一個難題，就是這些國家都主動願意加入，這你怎麽辦？自主權嘛，誰讓你贏不得人心呢
The Threat to Ukraine
but it might be enough to take more territory close to the current enclaves in Eastern Ukraine and perhaps set more viable long-term boundaries. This would however be an enormous gamble for Putin to take. In part this would be because of the international reaction
What Can be Negotiated?
What Can the West Do?
如果美國西方不讓步，普京沒什麽招數，隻能動武，大家都樂意看到俄烏兩敗俱傷
GIDEON RACHMAN
Russia is under siege. The country’s enemies have advanced to its borders. A hostile Nato alliance now threatens to incorporate Ukraine
如果這樣，那普京出師有名，攤牌叫你了（作者重複俄的申訴而已）
But the Kremlin narrative is nonsense. There is no risk that Nato will attack Russia. The reason that so many countries joined the alliance in the 1990s is because they fear Russian aggression
Stephen Walt: even bad guys has security concerns/demands
說普京隻是轉移視線，掩蓋自己的困境
For that reason, it is not in America’s power to grant Russia the stable “sphere of influence” that Putin demands
既然如此，美國就應當緊逼而上，俄國、普京政權不穩定
是不是輪到西方了？
公正地評估？
how to preserve Washington’s global leadership role at a time when its model of governance, both domestically and internationally, is increasingly called into question，到底誰內政不穩？美國的咄咄逼人其實是掩蓋自己的內亂，世界上越來越多的國家敢跟華盛頓叫陣，美國自己的民主牌也不好使，
self-delusion than the oft-repeated bromide that the United States’ rivals are on “the wrong side of history,”
美國隻會詆毀他人，但作者還是堅持“美國的行動是正義的”，但誰殺人最多？
If the Kremlin’s artificially manufactured crisis over Ukraine is any indication, Putin now senses that the time is ripe to move from defensive stalemate to an offensive initiative, 拜登怎麽想都無關，大家敢叫陣
如果美國明知不是核心利益也寸土不讓，那麽美國就沒有什麽很想利益，要麽疲於奔命，要麽全線放棄，
But Putin’s maximalist demands to undo
所以普京是打了一張好牌
其實，俄美在烏克蘭衝突，是俄美兩敗俱傷，但其實美國傷害小，而且和平才對中國最有利，不是戰爭，跟中國不相關的戰爭也不好
可作者堅持“美國不能讓步”，也是混淆主要次要矛盾，但這確實是個難題：價值口號喊得太響了，
However, this framing of democratic erosion in the face of authoritarian, populist leaders as a sort of balance sheet to be assessed by rational bean-counters misreads the trends that have fueled it
拜登把國會山暴動歸咎於闖王一人，是頗費心機的，好像美國啥事沒有，把闖王趕走就“重新偉大”了，即使拜登心裏清楚，但嘴上不得不這麽說，這瞞不住他人
北約頭子一直是好戰派，處處要打的架勢，“呼籲俄國合作，因為你們打不贏”，“準備好了，長期武裝衝突”，怎麽衝突？打到烏克蘭最後一個人？
“跟北約合作才是出路”，那北約到了家門口，出路在哪兒？
但美國西方的價值出發點確實很難爭辯，誰讓中俄這麽令人討厭？習近平的“中國故事”，他知道沒人信嗎？
Stoltenberg said both conditions were unacceptable because they breached Nato’s “core principles” of offering membership to all and defending allies equally.
確實如此，但俄國兵戎相見，去你的價值，你那價值就是把導彈安到我家門口，然後說你們是“主權、自決權”，屁。我現在就是跟你說，你放，我就打，看你的“主權、自決權”。美國和歐洲大國英德法已經表示即使發生武裝衝突，歐洲也不會介入，真不知北約秘書長在想什麽
such as “arms control, on efforts to try to have more transparency on military activity, exercises, and also on lines of communications”.
笑話，好像“把安裝的導彈給你報報數，讓你知道，死前當個明白鬼
Ruling out US missile deployments in Ukraine and discussing broader rules on missile systems in Europe were two areas where，但俄國也要退讓，硬碰硬，來吧
“We have proven before that we are able to make compromises and find solutions with Russia.”前提是先威嚇一把
中情局一直在訓練烏克蘭特種部隊，目的就是為了抗俄反俄：
普京的考慮
美國、西方從不從俄國、普京的立場來考慮，現在動武是有很大的風險，一旦動了武代價也很大，但不動武以後的風險更高，代價更大，如果烏克蘭配備了導彈，或者北約進駐烏克蘭，那怎麽辦？
Moscow believes that Kyiv won't make any concessions unless they are forced to by Washington or by Russian military force. Putin is currently trying with the former (and not attempting negotiations with Kyiv) and will likely attempt the latter if it fails
俄國的行動是有堅定的決心，有實質，會跟上的，不隻是嚇唬
1) specific demands
2) tied to a short timeline
3) promising a "military and military-technical" response
4) with substantial military capabilities capable of an escalation including an invasion on short notice
2) tied to a short timeline
3) promising a "military and military-technical" response
4) with substantial military capabilities capable of an escalation including an invasion on short notice
“They are deliberately backing themselves into a corner where their credibility will be questioned if they don't achieve concessions or use military force”
“The spring buildup failed to achieves Russia's aims at deterring these steps, and the HMS Defender incident, Ukrainian TB2 strike in the Donbas (the footage was released publicly), and NATO bomber flights over Ukraine/Black Sea, etc. are public embarrassments for Moscow.”
普京：允許烏克蘭加入北約將是民族罪人
不僅僅加入北約，而且不允許成為美國的灘頭陣地，全是美國武器，包括導彈
通牒
西方對普京的判斷
Is Vladimir Putin preparing for war? - New Statesman（Bruno Maçães）鄙視普京
他的觀點是通過不停地製造混亂，普京可以一舉兩得，既可以壓住國內反對派，也可以在歐洲、北約造成分裂，從中漁利
主動權
Why Russia Probably Won't Attack Ukraine (foreignpolicy.com)（How Russia Decides When to Invade）
西方不乏覺得普京的動機是為轉移視線，為了調和自己在國內的選舉、民意不振，事實肯定有這個成分，這是他們覺得普京大多數要挾，並不會真的出兵。
但這不是唯一的看法。
判斷：普京會入侵烏克蘭（因為誰會做好樣子卻不來真的？）
美國已經是動不動就製裁（聯係中國），俄國已經不怕了，因為已經滿身是製裁
西方連製裁都使不上（無法製裁能源、天然氣，歐洲凍僵了），更不用說動武了，動就一起死
烏克蘭自己
也許反俄和獨立無法分開
蘇聯解體前後，戈爾巴喬夫和葉利欽被西方誘惑、誤導、陷害，直接導致俄國的崩潰，這崩潰不是蘇聯，那時蘇聯已經不存在了，而是俄國本身。這種崩潰的原因是葉利欽無條件接受的西方一套製度，尤其是新自由主義為核心的經濟方針，其結果，不僅僅是整個社會解體，國家的生產力被摧毀，而且俄國人連基本溫飽都得不到保障，人均壽命暴跌5年，西方，尤其是美國，拒絕對俄國承擔任何責任，那意思是說，跟你說說，你接受，那是你傻，不能怪我。
烏克蘭人自己不緊張
要保持中立
說明烏克蘭是在玩耍美國
不過澤連斯基肯定有煽動的意思，希望攪渾水來把美國、北約拉入烏克蘭這趟水
但烏克蘭精英階層有自己的想法，西化。普京和其他人所說的，烏克蘭實際上是兩個世界，親西並不占多數，但控製國家機器和言論？
然而，許多人認為，2021 年的烏克蘭比以往任何時候都更接近北約，這不僅是由於俄羅斯軍事集結威脅所構成的現實
2020 年 6 月，北約理事會將烏克蘭稱之為“機會增加的夥伴”，自 2005 年首次開始要求加入北約以來，這被認為是北約與烏克蘭關係的一次重大飛躍和轉變
烏克蘭總統要求北約製定明確的 2022 年加入路線圖，拒絕了“50年後”加入的想法
俄國在給烏克蘭示意，趕快老老實實表態，永遠不加入北約，不值得
澤連斯基的環境：俄國威脅，美國鼓勵，內部強硬派，甚至政變
一旦
美媒說最新評估發現俄國將會付出的代價太大，普京未必能承受，真的嗎？
Putin’s military moves are rallying Ukrainians and unifying NATO
一廂情願的想法
2020年我國天然氣產量達到1925億立方米
中國由於產量不足以滿足需求，近兩年進口量在1億噸左右，對外依賴程度超過40%。中國將擴大自俄羅斯的天然氣進口，進口量將翻一倍，達到100億立方米，不多
（一立方天然氣在1個標準大氣壓下，大約重量為0.72kg/立方米，1925億立方米=1.386噸）
第二次視頻
12.30
普京拜登第二次視頻，普京竟然反客為主威脅拜登的“製裁”，厲害
Putin issued the warning during his second phone call this month with Biden, after the U.S. president reiterated how Russia would face unprecedented and punishing sanctions from Washington and its allies if Putin were to proceed with a new invasion of Ukraine
Russian officials see a time frame of just weeks for Biden to agree to demands that NATO has long refused, including effectively allowing Russia to veto the security decisions of Ukraine and other nations in the region. The White House has rejected any such bans on NATO membership out of hand, saying all sovereign nations should retain the right to make decisions about their own security.
這種交換與台灣和其相似
俄方：要有結果，但目前雙方“都有誠意”
Putin last week made it clear he would not wait long for the written security guarantees he demands. He said he was not interested in negotiations, only results
“It is you who must give us guarantees, and you must do it immediately, right now,”
“It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep.”
務實派，必須承認普京、俄國有自己的合理要求
克魯曉夫封鎖柏林，是判斷風險低，不會打仗（這是普京的思維嗎？）
would be premature to conclude that he has already decided to invade
烏克蘭和台灣：前者是俄國的核心利益，後者是中國的核心利益，兩者都不是美國、西方的核心利益，隻是一個前沿基地，美國現在將之推到前沿，主動（分別）向俄中挑戰，是狂妄過度、自信心膨脹，是在美國衰退後為了挽回其地位以進為退，為的是止住敗勢？還是
【有用嗎？】
升級前任何一個決策者都必須問，這一決定的後果如何？能不能達到自己想要的結果。對於普京來說，最危險的，一是美國西方的反擊，二是徹底使得烏克蘭永久成為自己的死敵。
美國要談什麽？
這裏提到西方可能會被迫接受克裏米亞議程現實，這是普京背後的動機嗎？
呼籲放棄烏克蘭，西方的麵子，“不能放棄原則”，隻是麵子。下麵是個有趣的反過來，
美國歐洲北約（西方）不會接納烏克蘭，俄國也知道，普京你丫急什麽，是不是有鬼？
你說“原則”，好，咱也來玩兒
美國自己實質上就是這麽做的，怎麽能逃得過媒體？因為媒體都是黨媒
反帝的不留情：
俄國肯定否認（也許真的沒有，通過國際能源組織之口，是試探），就像中國對立陶宛的手段一樣
after a top Russian diplomat delivered a series of seemingly contradictory messages
所有人，包括俄羅斯人都覺得不知道普京最終要求是什麽，這確實不容易，因為很多美國歐洲沒法接受，不論是不是合理都沒法接受，畢竟美國歐洲人也得有麵子，普京簡直是“得理不饒人”，
西方更覺得不可思議，俄國內外交困，實力遠遠不及西方，怎麽敢開大口？西方這種把俄國要求世衛詐唬的態度也危險，因為有一種不把對方當真的認識，俄國公開說“30年來第一次美國願意坐下來跟俄國一對一對等談判”，加強了美國把俄國當成發脾氣的認識，But he added that it was “absolutely mandatory” that the United States guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO.
說得這麽清楚、直接，美國還是聽不見
“We need long-term, legally binding guarantees” that would roll back the NATO presence in Eastern Europe, Mr. Putin said in December.
As best analysts can tell, it is the demand that NATO offer some kind of formal assurances not to expand eastward and to cease military cooperation with Ukraine that is now most important for Mr. Putin.
【新】
沒用：
普京未必需要入侵，把烏克蘭炸毀也是一種考慮
真要打的時候，任何“理性”，“價值”分析都是狗屁
【後記】
政府無能，隻依賴原材料開采，西方控製
與俄國緊密的關係，俄軍工產業很依賴，俄國肯定幹預
Russia perceives this to be an act of "hybrid war." Right or wrong, that perception is fueling a desire for revenge.顏色革命，西方直接在俄國後院搗亂
In the year before the attempted revolution, the U.S. National Endowment for democracy spent more than $1M in the country.
The money went to PR campaigns against the government and training anti-government protesters.
NED=CIA
Instead, it will only strengthen perceptions of the West as an existential threat.
Activists from prior color revolutions are already publicly taking credit for what is happening in Kazakhstan.
This comment was infuriating to Russia. The Foreign Ministry responded:
"If Anthony Blinken loves history lessons so much, then he should take the following into account: when Americans are in your house, it can be difficult to stay alive and not be robbed or raped."
"I don't think the United States is prepared to go to war in Ukraine. I don't think the United States is prepared to go to war over Taiwan," @lylegoldstein tells @ShaolinTom in @Newsweek. https://t.co/1pvWjDk0vI
— Defense Priorities (@defpriorities) December 7, 2021
這個：
I don't want to mischaracterize the interview, but that seems to be the vibe from the @TaraCopp write up. Taiwan is framed as an "early test" of the "diplomacy-first" model of "integrated deterrence."
— Elbridge Colby (@ElbridgeColby) December 7, 2021
That's pretty different than denying the invasion by militarily defeating it.
美國武裝幹涉烏克蘭反而是給中國的一個警告，美國不會把對方的利益放在心上
美國“主權”“自決”，都是一些大口號，這是一種普世價值的爭辯，不是不行，但主次不分，任何地區、事件都成了核心利益，結果烏克蘭明明不是核心利益也成了核心利益。當然歐洲是美國的核心利益，但再說一次，烏克蘭不是，但美國在抱大腿後就主動升級（賣武器、訓練、聲援），可見美國政府內有恨普京的，結果不顧兩麵樹敵，堅持以“世界第一強國”的身份同時與中俄開戰。把普京逼急了，普京太狠，一下子不讓美國有個台階下，除非丟盡臉，那美國怎能接受？
此文來自美國國內少數，但吵鬧得很凶的克製派，他們的論點是如果美國什麽都有美國絕對控製，那麽中國肯定心領意會美國就不會放過台灣（當然這很怪，因為阿三都知道美國不會允許台灣回歸，和平武統都不會允許）。
然而，美國的主流鷹派、政客是說不捍衛烏克蘭，那麽中國就會覺得美國一推再推，沒有原則，也就沒有信譽，中國肯定會得寸進尺，作者說主次不分才是危害
俄羅斯國內很多鷹派也的蠢蠢欲動，鼓動中國同時動手，覺得俄中聯手則天下可得矣，這有點瘋了。
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” William J. Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia and current CIA director,
美國怎麽才能從高調不丟臉地下來，承認國與國之間的實際安全關係，就是兩個大國是可能威脅對方的，與狗屁價值無關，北約說“我們是個自衛性的組織”，你當大家是傻子，南斯拉夫、伊拉克（沒受聯合國授權）、利比亞
Blinken affirmed in June that the United States continues to “support Ukraine’s membership in NATO.”
這種帶有侵略性的態度，俄國怎麽不反擊？
論點：台海和平是美國“表麵上”尊重中國的“一中紅線”，如果美國不尊重俄國在烏克蘭的紅線，那麽中國就不再信了（中國已經不信了），那樣台灣更危險
Other NATO allies long opposed to Ukrainian membership, including Germany and France, could amplify the pledge.
要美國公開聲明“烏克蘭不入北約，不在烏克蘭駐軍、部署導彈”，這樣反而更安全，隻是美國的麵子咋辦？
help to avoid the outcome truly unacceptable for U.S. interests — a war with Russia這才是美國的核心利益，所有人都忘了，這是為什麽普京有恃無恐
美國的辦法是像蘇軍侵略阿富汗，隻是提供武器，讓烏克蘭人去死，
it would also see Washington pushing to revise existing geopolitical arrangements without regard for the vital interests of other powers. China
這說明美國的外交政策還是被軍事化，還是同一群人在操縱，還是美國霸權，還是與美國人民的願望相違背
不同政見
“The revisionist powers”，一句話，就給敵人定性，說成“壞人”
Instead, Biden has threatened massive economic sanctions and military aid to Ukraine, in the event of a Russian attack.真是吃硬不吃軟
美國才是最不講信用的國家
美國缺乏自知之明
這未必是美國政府參與製定政策和談判團體的想法，但這種想法在美國很普遍，智庫、媒體、學術界的輿論對政府是有壓力的
難以理喻
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said getting out of the Iran nuclear agreement with the JCPOA was "one of the worst decisions made in American foreign policy in the last decade," in his end-of-year address on Tuesday. pic.twitter.com/ggoEijluTA
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) December 22, 2021
有人不擔心的
KATHARINE QUINN-JUDGE is a Consulting Senior Analyst for Ukraine at the International Crisis Group
過時的認識
談判好像很好嘛？？？
沒錯
【結尾】
翻炒
星球大戰和中華帝國
《星球大戰》背景參見【1】。本文選譯自【2】。
《星球大戰》正邪涇渭分明，雖然不是邪不犯正，但大家心目中正義、邪惡，誰是英雄，誰是惡魔一目了然，誰不為萊婭公主、盧克天行者折服，反而會去被達斯維達和帕爾帕庭皇帝吸引？
不過仔細用腦子想想，帝國才是星球真正的出路。
【資料】
“杜庫伯爵是一名擁有崇高理想又經常離經叛道的絕地，他離開共和國是因為不滿日益腐朽的製度和絕地評議會對於和平行者這個職位的執行力逐漸喪失”【中國行動】
【中國全麵向房市投降】
高瑞東：從六國經驗，看中國消費何時崛起_新浪財經（與西方對比完全是徒勞，國情、經濟結構完全不一樣）
“經濟下行，風險頻發，失業增大，在當前已經是不爭的事實”，失業？“為何不大大方方的采取放鬆政策”夠直接的
“最終的結果很可能不是治理好風險，而是造成信用生態不可逆的傷害。因為資產負債表不是現金流量表，一旦出現危機，短期內無法完全修複”
原來要來真的：
Larry Hu, China economist at Macquarie Group, an Australian investment bank, estimates the total value of China’s urban housing to be around the equivalent of $55 trillion. A national property-tax rate of 1% would thus bring in the equivalent of about $550 billion in annual government revenue—only 40% of revenues from land sales.
結果
壓力：
魷魚遊戲
從造假到爛劇
補充
真的輕？
《新》
【恨】
從所有結果來看，拜登的民主峰會以失望、失敗告終，不僅僅有一出美國政府出麵拉黑台灣代表的插曲【1】【2】，而且帶來的漫無目的、小矛盾四出的亂象給人的印象就是一個集市，大家鬧一鬧，民主峰會不是為了民主，而是為了拉攏大家一起反華的目的顯得很突出【3】，結果美國自身的困境反而成了大家的關注。本來中國可以在一旁看笑話，可是因為世界的話語平台並不在中國手裏，中國做出了非常激烈的反應，發表了一係列自辯和攻擊，緊張到美國都在看笑話【4】。中國堅持自己是真正的民主，美國和西方的反而是假民主，這是很難說服世界的，光看看彭帥就行了，你這麽封殺一個自己的公民，誰信你代表了廣泛的民意的呢？這種
不過不論中國多尷尬，有多少問題，美國本身的問題卻不能因此而消失，就像不論美國有多少問題，中國自己的問題也不能因此而消失一樣。美中都那麽緊張，是因為大家都在爭取世界的領導地位，這一場較量，是各自在自我吹噓的同時對對方的攻擊。
這正是尼爾•弗格森（Niall Ferguson）
這個：美國的體製，跟中國無關
【資料】
【2】美國官方有各種解釋，事實的真相很難說清。
【3】世界離開美國真的很難轉
當反華成了喜劇的時候，反華就成功了，
What is China doing in Africa?
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) December 17, 2021
If you don’t know, now you know. pic.twitter.com/Zu1UbXJj5V
President Xi Jinping, who took power in 2012, introduced a series of aggressive initiatives aimed at expanding China’s political and economic clout on a global scale. He launched the Belt and Road Initiative to construct infrastructure around the world, financed by Chinese banks and built by Chinese companies. A new industrial program known as “Made in China 2025” marshaled heavy state aid to accelerate the development of homegrown technology and national corporate champions in sectors from electric cars to robotics.
這位美國人從1990年以來就一直定居亞洲，他並非從外部觀察中國，而是以中國人的眼光看世界。Schuman表示他撰寫新書的動機在於很多西方人傾向於將中國加入西方世界曆史之中
中國人不在乎，不知道他這麽反華
遵循舒曼的答案非常簡單，中國想要它一直擁有的那個超級大國地位。他寫道：“中國幾乎在整個曆史上都是一個超級大國，它希望再次成為一個超級大國。”
[意識形態戰]
習近平的回應：去你的
楊潔篪：美國沒有資格居高臨下同中國說話
美國的分裂和中國體製地優越性
美國、西方的反中運動最終不是製度，意識形態的，而是種族、文明，這點就難以避免把這場衝突帶到人民與人民之間的衝突，這點從雙方各自的民意即可看出，這也給華裔帶來新的危機，不論你多麽“忠”，法律、公民社會多麽“強”，受迫害的機會肯定是遠大於零。
合作雙贏，不合作，後果可能是戰爭
可是：
Whether or not China ever surpasses it, the US has been bereaved of its 1990s unipolarity. It copes with the trauma by dwelling on what could have been done about it. If only China had not been waved into the World Trade Organization 20 Decembers ago. If only successive White Houses had not been so credulous in their dealings with Beijing. The recriminations go back to 1949, when, as some Republicans still fancy, the US “lost” China to communism.
西方從來就沒有阻止中國重新崛起的能力（崛起並不一定要“超越美國”），美國和西方隻是在做夢
Second, doing so would have somehow only stymied China, and not the west, even though American and other companies gorged on low-wage labour there ever after.
夢：
If this were just academically wrong, it need not detain us. But there are political consequences to this fantasy. One theme that Donald Trump rode to the White House was that US elites were derelict and even complicit in China’s rise. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama are still held to have sold out industrial America (but not credited for the cheap consumer goods that flowed into many of the same households from a trading China). The premise that a mighty China is some kind of aberration, and not just a regression to the historic mean, props up a lot of US populism.
西方一直處於一種“世界生活在黑暗之中，完全靠我們西方帶來光明”的曆史虛無主義，好像世界其他國家永遠不會覺醒，要求“我們也要過好日子”。崛起，隻是意識到“我們也要過好日子”，不能再靠“王侯將相”
Beijing’s charm offensive to preach equality and fairer growth faces scepticism
but
there are nonetheless important lessons that America should take from China’s efforts to do so — in particular, the focus on quality over quantity in terms of growth.
西弗吉尼亞參議員喬•曼欽昨天否決了拜登的“逼逼逼”宏圖，說要把錢留給跟中俄打仗用，這正是尼爾•弗格森（Niall Ferguson）所意識不到，也是他刻意否認存在的美國致命之傷
How do the rich keep getting richer? In his new book, Only the Rich Can Play, @davidmwessel tells the story of the creation of a massive tax break and how elites attend to the care and feeding of the super-rich. Get the book: https://t.co/RKP5fLfPPN pic.twitter.com/lj0g2AQMd3
— The Brookings Institution (@BrookingsInst) December 19, 2021
在我看來，貫穿西方近代崛起的三個核心概念，自由、民主和資本主義，相互之間是矛盾的，不是說完全、處處衝突，而是本質上無法兼容的，如自由民主彼此相克，自由與資本主義兼容性較強，因為它們的基礎都保護強者的利益，它們體現的公平是
The evangelists of free exchange insisted that unregulated capitalism and liberal democracy were symbiotic. A half century later, it is getting harder to find people who still think that is true.
But his indictment misses the ways in which the expansion of the market economy has often produced precisely the kinds of changes he seeks. For all the skepticism of the market on the left, it remains an important tool.
資本主義沒出問題，而是越來越厲害，關鍵的問題，是西方全球化的動機，原本不是為了拯救他人與水深火熱之中，而是為了獲得更大的利益，結果適得其反，反而是亞洲若幹國家獲利，西方中產是受害者之一
If capitalism has this force that commodifies politics (thought Schumpeter had that idea), it's a corrupting force. It has 2b regulated, but it always resists any control. In this sense capitalism is doomed in internal contradiction (self destruction) & will be in constant crisis. Globalization brings
REALITY CHECK: If you're blaming only #JoeManchin and not the entire Dem leadership, you're being played for a dupe.
— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) December 19, 2021
美國總是說，美國犯下了很多罪孽，但那不是我們美國人，（This is not who we are），所以闖王上台把全世界砸了個底朝天，但那不代表我們美國，現在睡王登基，一切就好了
“（美國）黨媒......把美國的責任推給國內個別搗亂者，如民主黨自己的參議員【27】，好像他不是美國人，而是中共奸細似的”
Sherrilyn Ifill
Manchin is Manchin. But what kind of healthy democracy is structured in a way that can allow one man elected by 290,000 voters in one of the least populous states to thwart the agenda of his party and the President who was elected with 81 million votes. We need structural change.
美國現在連政策的連續性都不能保持，世界為何也信任美國？
舉例
氣候政策又是一個空頭許諾
A growing number of U.S. observers conclude that competition with China could not only impart renewed clarity to a U.S. foreign policy that, they contend, has been adrift since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also mitigate America’s political infighting. Rigorously interrogating the latter supposition, Myrick finds “little evidence that foreign threats systematically reduce domestic polarization in the American context.”
【一個結尾，是另一個的開端】
普京為什麽急了？
Russia Seeks to Stop NATO’s Expansion, Not to Annex More Territory
普京想什麽？
普京一直對蘇聯在冷戰中敗北，喪失對東歐的控製權耿耿於懷，不僅僅是東歐，冷戰後形成的世界秩序是一個極不公平的秩序，俄國失去了其影響世界事態的能力和權力，烏克蘭對峙是一個推翻這一秩序的機會，一個重新讓世界承認、接受俄國的大國地位的機會，用習近平的話，“新型大國關係”。但美國既沒有接受習近平的新型大國關係，更加把俄國當成二流小國（俄國經濟不到美國的十分之一）。俄國在全世界與美國較量的機會很少，但把一手爛牌打響，普京比奧巴馬川普拜登，也比習近平更厲害，敘利亞整個把戰局扭轉過來，甚至對美國幹預他國內政（如操縱俄羅斯在葉利欽時代的“大選”），直接用到美國身上（如美國指控俄國在2016、2020年美國選舉製造假消息，對俄國來說，隻是以其人之道，還治其人之身），普京把烏克蘭看成最後一道防線，是能不能反擊美國、北約、西方的關鍵一戰
澤連斯基強製性地把親俄反對派領導人梅德韋丘克（Medvedchuk）以叛國罪趕下台，受到美國支持，而普京則認為是公開斷絕與俄國的任何關係，這也是俄國升級的原因之一，澤連斯基此舉除了美國政府，西方都覺得罪名是莫須有，
波羅申科
北約向烏克蘭提供武器，更是過了紅線
At a certain point, Russia came to fear that Ukraine, in its accumulation of NATO weapons systems, was becoming the equivalent of an unofficial member state
“But that doesn’t mean they don’t take very seriously the importance of insuring Ukraine’s neutral status, which, as they see it, means it cannot host any NATO military infrastructure,” L
“From the perspective of the West, the end of the Cold War gave way to the rise of a certain geopolitical order, with which everyone more or less agrees—except Russia, which every now and then gets upset for seemingly no reason,” Lukyanov told me. Only that’s not the view in Moscow, he explained. “The issue is not so much Ukraine but the underlying principle: if a military alliance seeks to expand, it has to consider the interests of those who are opposed.” Russia, in other words, can’t be expected to remain a passive observer of actions that it believes violate its core security concerns. “That’s the red line, and, if crossed, Russia will respond,” Lukyanov said.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs and a respected voice in Moscow foreign-policy circles
For the first two decades of his rule, Putin saw his own geopolitical maneuvering as essentially reactive, a response to what he and the Russian policy élite viewed as long-standing Western efforts to weaken Russia. “In Putin’s reality, Russia was encircled and under threat, and was required to defend itself,” Tatiana Stanovaya, head of the analysis firm R.Politik,
忍了二十年，是可忍孰不可忍，你們還要逼？
“He made clear that Russia will no longer stand around whining and complaining about the injustices of the world,” Stanovaya said. “It is ready to act, to use force to stand up for its position. This is a principally different Putin, and a different Russia.”
趙立堅：我們強烈譴責，堅決反對
He also said Russia will deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe if NATO does not agree to return to treaty talks over banning such weapons. “This path must be traversed quickly,” Ryabkov said. One element of the U.S. position that somewhat buoyed hopes in Moscow is Biden’s promise to Putin that he would assemble a meeting of major NATO allies to address Russia’s concerns
In a wide-ranging essay on Russia’s new, more assertive foreign policy, the analyst and columnist Vladimir Frolov wrote, “The threat of the use of force against Ukraine cannot be infinitely convincing (and effective for achieving political goals) without actually using force.” Frolov wryly quoted a line attributed to Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “Superpowers don’t bluff.”
曆史學家沃海：烏克蘭有申請加入北約的權力，美國有考慮為誰出兵的權力，我說俄國也有不被威脅的權力，現在北約都是堅持保留烏克蘭權力的聲音，但沒人敢出來說為烏克蘭賣命，沒錯，是賣命
澤連斯基去年年頭在拜登就任之際直接向美國媒體問罪：“烏克蘭為什麽還沒加入北約？”前幾天美國數位參議員訪問烏克蘭給烏克蘭助威，澤連斯基又說：“等到俄國入侵再製裁就晚了。”這是氣話，製裁本來就是對入侵的回應，而不能提前使用。
美國國內的政客、精英、媒體支持美國以強硬政策回應的聲音占壓倒性多數，可極少人考慮過發生衝突的後果，這就是我前幾天說的，“把烏克蘭變成“俄羅斯的墳場”，如果俄軍入侵，就是把烏克蘭變成暴動遊擊戰、反侵略戰的大戰場，不出兵，但給烏克蘭提供先進武器，把烏克蘭的每一寸土地都變成戰場，打到烏克蘭的最後一個戰士。這是對西方最有利的局麵，自己一兵不出，還站在‘道義’上讓俄烏兩國相互打個稀爛”。
幾天前美國外交政策的設計師之一，拜登的大外總管蘇利文接受《外交政策》采訪，烏克蘭自然是話題之一，這次采訪很簡單，每個話題都隻能三言兩語帶過，提到烏克蘭，蘇利文隻是強調“每個國家都有主權，都有自己做出選擇的權力”。每個國家都有自己的權力，當這個國家沒有能力來捍衛自己權力的時候，那會怎麽辦？
這就涉及國際關係，就不簡單是“選擇的權力”，蘇利文說“我們有足夠的準備來對付俄國的任何新的，保護自己和盟國的利益”，什麽是利益，那些盟國，都不清楚，這種所謂一個國家有自己選擇的能力，而這種選擇不會影響到其他國家，完全是一種無知，或者是蓄意蒙混大家。
一個國家，或一個伸張獨立的地區，確實可以高呼 “主權”，即使主權是一種權力，它也不能排除這種權力所帶來的對他人的威脅，這種威脅的結果很可能以暴力最終極結局，不是說這是什麽好事，隻是說這是一個不可回避的結局，正義的邪惡的戰爭首先是一場戰爭，戰爭是由後果的。這麽說吧，毒蛇猛獸與“基於規則的秩序”為敵，可他們也得活啊，你處處以普世價值——且不說這些普世價值假的成分很多——不讓他們有生存的機會，那你就別怪他們“狗急跳牆”。
這種選擇，更不能脫離地理，脫離曆史
沃爾特反駁了蘇利文所說“烏克蘭這一決定跟曆史無關”，他說今天的苦果正是美國在單極時代過度狂妄的結果，他解釋今天這種結局的根源：
世界所有國家都為自己的安全計劃，有時為了增加自己的安全不惜動武，也必須保證自己不受戰爭威脅。可自由主義覺得這沒什麽好擔心的，在他們看來，世界上所有國家要麽是好人（就是信奉自由主義的），否則就是壞人，好人不打好人，戰爭是壞人引起的，所以防止戰爭，好人就要抱團（聯盟），推翻所有壞人（國家），傳播民主、市場經濟、自由貿易、投資，共同設定規則
“好人抱團推翻所有壞人”帶來了一種古怪的結果：反而是好人動用戰爭去“消滅暴政、壞人”，這是美國過去幾十年戰爭不斷的原因，可美國還鬥膽不以為那是戰爭。
美國一直糊弄大家，糊弄自己，覺得自己代表“正直”，任何人都不應當擔心，美國把武器安到你家門口，也是出於善意，這種心態也使用到俄國身上【隻有中國一直警覺，知道“亡我之心不死”】，還覺得俄國會接受美國的要求，這是俄國受了幾十年氣的原因，普京在2007年慕尼黑安全會議直接向西方提出來俄國的安全必須考慮，當時普京直瞪著坐在聽眾席的西方元首，結果大家充耳不聞，現在終於兵戎相見，等著美國行使“自由主義”來挽救當前的困境。
蘇利文：外長貝克向戈爾巴喬夫的（口頭）許諾無關緊要；普京：北約必須書麵保證不接納烏克蘭為成員
利比亞美國也是越權，耍了中俄（當時中國還有點傻傻的）
最近美伊一直還就恢複伊核協定談判，談得很艱難，原因是美國盡管公開承認推出伊核協定是過去十年外交政策最大的失誤，但卻不肯認錯，
美國正在和伊朗就伊核問題再次談判，美國已經公開承認退出伊核協議是“美國外交史上最大的錯誤之一”【13】，但美國遲遲不肯下決心取消對伊朗的製裁，然後雙方重新回到原來的協議。這個細節比較複雜，在此不細說，關鍵的，是美國明知自己退出沒理，還沒用，但還要伊朗先讓步，“以前以為增大製裁就製住你們，你們會投降，但發現沒用，但盡管沒用，你們得先投降，我們才會認錯”，把人當傻子。
對伊朗來說，美國是個沒有信譽的國家，說話不算數，這次談判的一大難點是伊朗要美國許諾，重新加入後不變卦，美國政府說那不行，美國體製不允許，這就是說美國這個國家從體製就不可能信（有人甚至說即使是雙邊協定（Treaty），美國政府也可以反悔），這次俄國提出書麵要求，也算是將了美國一軍。
As Peter Beinart recently noted, the United States has repeatedly declared the Western Hemisphere to be off-limits to other great powers and has threatened or used force on numerous occasions to make that declaration stick
沃爾特：美國和北約鷹派說“北約是個開放性的組織，歡迎所有合格國家加入”是瞎扯，誤讀章程，是一種挑釁，北約是一個軍事聯盟，說一個軍事聯盟不會對他人威脅，是明顯把他人視為弱智，是侮辱。北約這種好人壞人的態度基本上美國單極霸權心態的延伸，我就是欺負到你家門口了，你咋辦？從這個角度，你可以看出普京習近平怎麽會受得了？關鍵是美國在遇到真正的對手時，並不占上風，美國能重創對手，但較量中可能敗北，在烏克蘭，美國是可以製裁俄國，但俄國在美國歐洲北約威脅下把烏克蘭炸爛，也是向西方證明你們“永遠與烏克蘭人民站在一起”是狗屁，一點用都沒有。
officials in Europe and the United States never seemed to have asked themselves whether Russia might object to this outcome or what it might do to derail it. As a result, they were blindsided when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the seizure of Crimea
美國外交界元老，哈佛教授沃爾特（Stephen M. Walt），
俄國的行為也激起其他國家的反感，也跟著以示威的方式與俄國對抗，這很討厭，也顯得孤立，但俄國能簡單置之不顧嗎？
這還沒完。
美國人對於他人受難是絕對沒有多少同情心的，看看美國動用的製裁就可見一斑，多少人為此毀了一輩子，多少人喪失了生命，美國看到的，隻是“人權”隻是“美國秩序”，這也是美國借助葉利欽這個賣國賊把俄羅斯摧毀，經濟崩潰，整一代俄國人失去了生存的空間，人均壽命掉到58歲，可有多少美國人知道？沒幾個，知道的也不在乎。作為國與國之間的競爭，這也無奈，可偏偏美國還來給你一套價值觀
想想美國在敘利亞駐軍，壓製敘利亞政府和對己不利的敵對勢力，還保護石油資源，俄國是不是也可以以威脅俄國利益為理由在攻擊烏克蘭的同時懲罰一下波羅的海三國？這3國是北約成語，他們是不是狐假虎威（都很敵視俄國）借機向俄國示威？
普京將美國一軍，也是一個戰略機會，美國不是要和中國爭天下嗎？你能兩麵作戰嗎？敢把精力放在歐洲，為一個小小的烏克蘭賣命嗎？俄國這是不是利用中國實際上是無關的，對中國沒什麽影響，隻是給普金將軍的機會。這點，連美國的金燦榮（Hal Brands，霍普金斯大學）都覺得不行了不行了，太累了，他的想法很簡單，價值為基礎的外交政策必然使得美國四處奔波，疲於奔命，因為價值沒法分主次，所有利益都是核心利益
2000年前後，美國立誌打造能同時打兩場大戰的能力，這在今天中國軍力發展起來之後就顯得幼稚了，雖然美國放棄了這一奢望，但冷戰後美國一切外交都從軍事角度考慮的習慣並沒有變，這就使得美國軍力更加力不從心，
America’s defense strategy is increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific, but its foreign policy remains stubbornly global
"Kyiv is stunned,"
馬克龍就法國就任歐盟主席講話：
更長的曆史，西方毀諾，北約擴張
2008年小布什力排眾議許諾烏克蘭喬治亞加入北約，當時歐洲很多人反對，普京還被邀參加了北約會議，當場反客為主公開表示俄國不可能接受，結果大家以擱置的方式不提了，但也沒放棄，種下惡果
losing sight of the idea that the Kremlin too has vital interests.
現在普京的要求，歐洲，尤其是東歐接受不了，但這有先例：芬蘭，芬蘭就通過自己的憲法表示中立，滿足俄國（蘇聯）的要求，也好好的
US and German strategists had given “very clear signals” that Nato would not expand farther eastward if Germany were allowed to reunite. But this sphere of influence commitment was quickly dropped in the 1990s and early part of the 2000s as Russia struggled as an independent country and a string of eastern bloc countries joined Nato and the EU.
欺負當時的俄國和賣國賊葉利欽（雖然他也大罵，但被美國操縱上台的，有什麽用？）
has provided $2.5bn in military aid, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, s
曆史
號稱“普京的哲學家”的杜金說的，自然是反應極端俄國民族主義，領土這玩意兒很微妙，俄國與中國有著說不清的關係，我就不順著他的意思說了，但他說的，聯想起台灣，很有“啟發性”。
首先他說烏克蘭曆史上一直是俄國的一部分，分離出去隻是曆史上少數脫俄入歐的人，但他們很多時候占據上風，使得烏克蘭跟著折騰，這一說法用在台灣上肯定恰當。他說的，有時覺得跟普京說的差不多，也許兩人說的是同一個意思。普京不久前曾經寫過論述，也是講述烏克蘭如何是俄羅斯“不可分割的一部分”，現在完全“吞並”是難點，但杜金通過“兩種烏克蘭人”的方式，和親西方的那些“異類”屬於納粹份子，是屠殺其他烏克蘭人的暴徒，“當莫斯科軟弱，並且任由白癡或西方勢力的直接代理人統治時，俄羅斯就失去了烏克蘭，讓烏克蘭落入了那些立即被西方選中的極端民族主義政客手中”，他暗示現在的局麵“隻能有一個解決方案：將烏克蘭分成兩部分，承認兩個政治主權——西部的右岸烏克蘭（Western Right Bank Ukraine ）和新俄羅斯（Novorossiya）”。他把這一切歸咎於“新一輪的升級自從拜登上台開始，白宮裏出現了一群極端的全球主義者、大西洋主義者、新保守主義者和不惜任何代價挽回單極世界的支持者”，與中國、台灣的狀況何其相似。
這事實上很難，普京還簽了明斯克協議，但也許這正些普京討價的出發點。
西方也同意曆史很複雜，烏克蘭是不是一直“獨立”說不清
Now, Ukraine is searching for Yaroslav’s missing bones.
雅羅斯拉夫，博學的基輔王子骨骸
北約文件解密：美國北約確實向戈爾巴喬夫許諾不擴張
克林頓
最新揭秘：冷戰中情局一直和納粹聯手，試圖顛覆蘇聯
as the year when President Vladimir Putin gave up on talking to Ukraine’s leadership and made his decisive move
almost all of the requisite components and justifications for military intervention are either in—or moving into—place
普京的行為也是對拜登、美國的回應，你以為你能嚇唬我，震住我？
one-on-one meeting with Biden in Geneva, explicit recognition of Russia’s status as a “worthy adversary,”
大國待遇
北溪2號，俄國人不理睬政治，普京不錯，財政也不錯，給軍方發錢，正逢歐洲能源危機
美國內亂也給俄國一種東升西降的感覺，哈，俄國精英對普京還是買賬，普京和俄國精英也覺得中國、習近平靠譜，雙方關係是西方的隱患，但他們
此文說明西方俄國不了解，“轉移視線”就是坐在倫敦華府柏林瞎猜，實際上，普京在2021年的處境極佳
個人遺產：No item on that agenda is more important—or more pivotal—than the return of Ukraine to the fold.
這點，普京、習近平，俄國、中國都一樣，美國將之視為沒有“合法性”，不是大國，即使稱之為大國，也不予以大國待遇，就是不理你，罵你，這是我多次描述的，美國就是不跟中國正式談判，而是在旁邊到處開批鬥會，不停地罵，能捅一刀就捅。美國也是這樣對待俄國的。美國不能理解，不能容忍俄國有“戰略縱深”這麽一個要求，（門羅綱領）
美國這種傲慢的態度把即使是不願意交往也不得不結盟的中俄推到一起，美國那套“我維護正義，把軍艦、飛機、導彈放到你家門口你也不能有意見”，想想台灣。
烏克蘭是俄國國安的核心、關鍵，紅線，北約擴張，烏克蘭顏色革命，在普京看來都是美國包圍俄國的計劃一部分
俄烏對明斯克協議都不滿，烏克蘭也越來越強，美國軍援越來越多，顯然美國是在插手，難以對付
Zelenskyy rackdown on Putin’s close friend Viktor Medvedchuk and his media holdings，顯然違憲（台灣中天）
普京的有利地位：烏克蘭是俄國核心利益，不是西方，普京會動武，西方不可能
分析的情形一
非常有內容
all of the Western anxiety and hand-wringing about the crisis seems to be clouding people’s ability to listen to what the Kremlin is actually saying. Until now, there has been surprisingly little Western acknowledgement that Russian President Vladimir Putin is being much blunter about what he wants in Ukraine and the lengths to which he is prepared to go to obtain it
Putin has said that he wants a deal to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO. He also wants a Western promise never to deploy NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine. Putin cited U.S. MK-41 missile launchers now in Romania to illustrate what he’s worried about: “I will repeat once again that the issue concerns the possible deployment in the territory of Ukraine of strike systems with the flight time of 7–10 minutes to Moscow, or 5 minutes in the case of hypersonic systems. Just imagine that.”
Rather it is aimed at persuading the West that Russia is prepared to start a full-scale war over Ukraine unless something is done about the existing and (in Putin’s eyes, at least) completely unacceptable state of affairs.
First, Russia attaches paramount importance to Ukraine. Second, its patience with the status quo is running thin
It wants to prevent the European Union from linking flows of Russian natural gas to Europe to the Ukrainian conflict.
這些美國西方直接說相反的，俄國都提出來了
But it wants to convince the United States that it is prepared to bear those costs because of the importance of Ukraine for Russian national interests.
Putin is also seeking to persuade Washington that unlike Russia, it has little to lose from compromising over Ukraine. The country’s fate is hardly a U.S. vital interest worth going to war over
中國能不能學俄國，在台海陳兵，然後逼美國1個月內表態，不表就打？
這是為什麽中國對美國薩德入韓反應那麽大的原因，中國沒有反製之力，結果慢慢忍了，俄羅斯就不會買賬，北約一再表示（“目前”）不會考慮烏克蘭的成員申請，但這種口頭許諾，是一種不可容忍的威脅，對俄羅斯來說，北約靠得太近，事關俄羅斯生死存亡。
1: NATO’s first eastward expansion
2: NATO’s military intervention in the Balkans
3: NATO’s subsequent waves of expansion
4: treating Russia as an outright enemy in Ukraine and elsewhere
評論
博主已關閉評論
