主题:特朗普正在送给俄罗斯巨大的战略利益 -- 青颍路

大河奔流 导读 复 61 阅 37647

/ 5 首页 上页 下页 末页

O 特朗普正在送给俄罗斯巨大的战略利益 53 青颍路 字4697 2018-10-09 13:38:49
O 美学者讨论中俄制造“美国噩梦” 3 青颍路 字13117 2019-01-14 12:51:22
O -- 粗茶淡饭 待认可未通过。 偏要看 耗株钱:1
O 川普是自毁长城 42 故乡在喀什 字579 2018-10-13 16:24:15
..O 美国好象是把祖传的宝贝拿出来换了点钱 4 生活在阳光里 字48 2018-10-15 04:29:38
...O 崽卖爷田 14 故乡在喀什 字253 2018-10-15 20:09:27
....O 我觉得现在的美国政商合作在唱红白脸。 3 老百姓万岁 字771 2018-11-09 04:08:01
....O 他也是病急乱投医 5 独立寒秋HK 字178 2018-10-18 23:43:28
..O 中国到现在还没有真正意义上的美国买办! 7 赛昆仑 字383 2018-10-14 11:25:10
...O 官僚资本和买办资本还没有同流,是中国人民的福祉吗? 14 故乡在喀什 字257 2018-10-14 23:17:26
O 鲍威尔发话这活原来是基辛格干的 13 青衣江水 字871 2018-10-10 12:41:00
..O 只要智商不欠费,这种伎俩好对付得很 4 天堂 字85 2018-10-14 08:05:59
..O 没什么奇怪的,有人负责唱白脸,就有人负责唱红脸 1 绝对不是白领 字18 2018-10-10 21:29:31
O 中俄加起来也没用,只会消耗中国的经济能力 mcpssx 字117 2018-10-10 05:24:17
..O 中美表面上有互补性,实际上是美消费中生产。 9 ccceee 字267 2018-10-14 05:26:03
2018-10-09 13:38:49
主题:4370427
青颍路
青颍路`42874`/bbsIMG/face/0005.gif`70`16730`3194`90468`正八品上:给事郎|宣节校尉`2009-09-23 17:49:58`0
1 特朗普正在送给俄罗斯巨大的战略利益 53

苏联1922年12月30日-1991年12月25日, 国祚25198天。现在中国政府是最为长久的社会主义体制的典范了。

1991年8月19日,我刚到美国没几天,暂时住在一个去度假的中国学生的房间,正在时差中消化眼花缭乱的新世界,没料到一个更大的历史剧上演了。苏联政变了,叶利钦炮轰苏联国会白宫了。反正那几天没事一天到晚守着电视机和同学们侃大山瞎分析。真是瞎分析,历史,只有想不到没有做不到,一个强大的国家和其领导的华约集团,灰飞烟灭了。主要外因之一是中美结盟,内因之一是叶利钦为个人的权力欲望,置其国家利益为垫脚石,给中国,美国和西方国家送了一份厚的不能再厚的大礼。

看到过一个笑话: 就在1991年12月25日,镰刀斧头要降落前,一个坚强的人临危受命,举手宣誓:我一定要好好潜伏,把这同样的耻辱加到敌人的头上。 眼看就要28年过去,弹指一挥间。。。。

通俄门原来我不信,现在我信了。

对俄罗斯来说最大的战略利益是和美国和解结盟对付中国,这样是对中国利益的最大伤害,对美国也是一种慢性的打击。对美国之所以是慢性的打击是因为中美关系的解体带来的负面效应没法由美国能得到的加上俄罗斯能输送的利益来补偿。这一步,特朗普试了一下,天时地利人和一样没有,成了不可能的任务。

对中国来说最佳的选择是维持和美国的密切经贸往来,照顾到美国的关切和利益,以中俄印战略三角为战略后盾和退路,以一带一路为经济的新动力,在相当长(50-100年)的时间内以G2模式促进世界的发展。我认为这也是对美国比较现实的优化选择。当然这种选择对俄罗斯来说要安居于配角的地位,它往日的辉煌就像遥远的梦。

那么对俄罗斯来说,它的第二选择就是中美分离两败俱伤。这样俄罗斯对中国的战略意义就不是配角了。对于中国来说这种选择也是第二好的选择,这是一条充满斗争的荆棘之路,美国不可能像苏联一样功力全无。这样条件下复苏过来的俄罗斯,对中国来说不会是像加拿大一样的资源后方,以俄罗斯的实力和潜力,中国又会有一个强邻,在这种条件下的中俄印战略三角会给世界带来巨大的震撼,现在不太好预测。估计现在普京正在欣赏品尝这特朗普送来的蛋糕。

中国现在是面临新的变局,冷面以对,对美国晓以利害。前国务卿奥尔布赖特也已经看到其中的陷阱美前国务卿批特朗普外交政策. 一但局势变到中美没有互信,中国放手与俄国进一步整合,中俄合力对付美国,将是美国的最差选择。那时,美国即使不会步苏联的后尘,也会焦头烂额。特力钦大概可以完成任务了。

我非常喜欢美国著名诗人罗伯特·弗罗斯特的《未选择的路》,有感于彭斯声明的信号,思绪联翩,是为记。

The Road Not Taken

Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood,and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

未选择的路

(罗伯特·弗罗斯特)

黄色的树林里分出两条路

可惜我不能同时去涉足

我在那路口久久伫立

我向着一条路极目望去

直到它消失在丛林深处

但我却选择了另外一条路

它荒草萋萋,十分幽寂

显得更诱人,更美丽

虽然在这条小路上

很少留下旅人的足迹

那天清晨落叶满地

两条路都未经脚印污染

呵,留下一条路等改日再见

但我知道路径延绵无尽头

恐怕我难以再回返

也许多少年后在某个地方,

我将轻声叹息将往事回顾:

一片树林里分出两条路——

而我选择了人迹更少的一条,

从此决定了我一生的道路。


  • 本帖 6 回复
通宝推:红军迷,尚儒,wage,故乡在喀什,猪啊猪,三笑,桥上,
最后于2018-10-09 22:06:42改,共4次;
2018-10-09 13:38:49
2019-01-14 12:51:22
4388093 复 4370427
青颍路
青颍路`42874`/bbsIMG/face/0005.gif`70`16730`3194`90468`正八品上:给事郎|宣节校尉`2009-09-23 17:49:58`0
2 美学者讨论中俄制造“美国噩梦” 3

美学者讨论中俄制造“美国噩梦”

点看全图

《国家利益》杂志1-2月刊杂志封面

在美国的一些学者眼中,缺乏“战略性系统思维”的华盛顿,将中国与俄罗斯当成敌人对待,却促进了中俄之间的友好关系,这是美国的“噩梦”。

据美国《国家利益》杂志网站(The National Interest)当地时间1月12日报道,10日,“修昔底德陷阱之父”、哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院的教授格雷汉姆·艾利森(Graham T. Allison)和国家利益中心的总裁兼首席执行官迪米特里·西梅斯(Dimitri K. Simes)在一场会议上讨论了他们最近为《国家利益》杂志撰写的封面报道:“(中国和俄罗斯)新的好朋友?”

杂志主编雅各布·海尔布伦(Jacob Heilbrunn)担任主持人。出席会议的知名人士包括俄罗斯和中国的知名学者、中国驻美国大使崔天凯等外交官以及美国政府官员。

America’s Nightmare: The Sino-Russian Entente

Growing cooperation between China and Russia poses a major strategic challenge to the United States, which if left unchecked could have profoundly negative consequences, warned Graham Allison and Dimitri Simes at a recent discussion at the Center for the National Interest. Both experts cautioned that Washington is committing a grave miscalculation by failing to make strategic adjustments to forestall the increasingly close alignment of these two once bitter rivals. Allison, the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard University, and Simes, President and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, discussed their recent cover stories for the current edition of the National Interest magazine, China and Russia: “ New Best Friends? “ Jacob Heilbrunn, the magazine’s editor, moderated. Prominent attendees included leading scholars on Russia and China, foreign diplomats including the ambassador of China, and administration officials.

As Russia and China have become increasingly aligned in recent years, the United States has lost the once advantageous position it occupied during the second half of the Cold War of enjoying better relations with Moscow and Beijing, respectively, than they had with one another. Allison recalled that shortly before his death in 2017, Zbigniew Brezinski, who worked closely with China to counter the Soviet Union during his tenure as President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, said that “analyzing threats to American interest, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China and Russia, united not by ideology, but by complementary grievances.” Allison said that the purpose of his article is to answer the question: “Are we realizing Brezinski’s nightmare?” He warned that the United States is much closer to facing “a grand coalition of Russia and China” than he had expected when he began his research on this issue.

Unable to find a framework or scorecard to analyze the strength of the Russia-China alliance, Allison developed his own, which tracks seven dimensions: “threat perceptions, relationships between leaders, official designation of the other, military and intelligence cooperation, economic entanglements, diplomatic coordination, and elites’ orientation.” Regarding the first element, Allison noted that “when Chinese and Russian leaders think about current threats, the specter they see is the U.S., and they imagine an American government that’s seeking to undermine their regimes, or even to overthrow them.” He contrasted hardline U.S. rhetoric towards Beijing and Moscow, Barack Obama’s slights of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s bellicose assertion that “China is raping America,” with the comradely language Presidents Putin and Xi employ towards one another.

Simes observed that Russian officials and experts strive to portray the Russia-China partnership as an alliance in all but name. However, he said that despite growing cooperation, the relationship still does not rise to the level of a de facto alliance, and an official alliance between the two powers is improbable. Beijing eschews such official commitments and would be concerned that a formal alliance with Moscow would negatively impact its fragile, but salient economic relationship with the United States. For example, although China has been “very positive about deepening economic cooperation with Russia in general,” Beijing has rebuffed Moscow’s entreaties to take specific measures that would bolster the Russian economy against Western pressure, such as conducting financial transactions in local currency (so as to avoid the U.S. dollar). Chinese banks have also been largely unwilling to provide credit to Russian entities under U.S. sanctions for fear of the consequences for their dollar-denominated transactions and dealings with U.S. firms.

The importance that Beijing attaches to its relationship with the United States and its resulting reticence to tilt too far towards Moscow was perhaps most clearly driven home by a remark from China’s Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, during the question and answer session of the discussion. Commenting on the cover of the current edition of the National Interest , which features a photo of a smiling Xi and Putin and shaking hands, Cui remarked that it would be nice to see Donald Trump’s smiling face alongside those of the Chinese and Russian leaders. This underscores that China is more interested in working with Russia and other partners to accelerate the emergence of a multipolar, post-American world than in becoming enmeshed in a permanent bipolar struggle on the side of Russia versus the United States.

Despite circumscribed economic cooperation and the lack of a formal alliance, Simes observed that the relationship still holds real strategic utility for Russia: “the very sense in Moscow that they may have a Chinese option provides them with a kind of encouragement to be tougher, to be bolder, and to be more optimistic about their ability to survive without a meaningful cooperation with the United States.” Simes noted a number of key developments that contribute to this sense of Russian resolve vis-à-vis the United States. First, Russia no longer sees China as a military threat (which was the case as recently as the late 1990s), territorial disputes have been resolved, and the mass Chinese migration to the Russian Far East that was predicted in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse never materialized. Military-to-military cooperation has deepened with a growing array of joint exercises and training. Russia has also undergone an attitudinal shift on arms sales, noted Simes. Russian arms manufacturers no longer refrain from selling their most advanced military hardware to China, which they did out of fear of Chinese reverse-engineering in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

American analysts have long expressed skepticism that China and Russia can develop deeper cooperation due to competing long-term interests, historical rivalry, and a lack of shared values. Nevertheless, Simes posited that when it comes to geopolitics, immediate mutual interests and threat perceptions trump shared values. He cited several historical examples, including the close cooperation between autocratic Imperial Russia and democratic France and Great Britain, as cases of strategic alignment between partners with divergent values that altered the course of history: “What values did France share with Russia in the beginning of the last century? France was a real democracy and Russia was a fairly despotic, even non-constitutional monarchy. If you look at the tactical differences it’s very difficult to find two nations, which would be as much at odd as Russia and England at that time, and you know that they worked closely together against Germany and again you know what has followed.”

A recurring question from the audience was: why has the United States either ignored or downplayed increasing China-Russia cooperation, and even taken actions that have driven the two powers together? “I think there’s a very simple reason why we aren’t doing it, it’s not a pleasant topic… if you start discussing it [Sino-Russian alignment], you will have to think about unintended consequences. You have to think about how to avoid these consequences” said Simes. He noted the United States might have to exercise greater foreign policy restraint in its dealings with Russia and China, where it otherwise might want to take action.

For Allison, as well, how the United States ought to respond to the growing congruence between its two nearest major power rivals is the “hardest question.” He asserted that the United States needs “a more realistic recognition of cause and effect. Washington likes to talk about its strategic purposes,” but global politics are “about consequences, not about intent.” Regardless of how sincere the United States is in its aims, which Allison said are to condition China and Russia to accept roles as subordinate stakeholders in a U.S.-led international order, the current mindset in Washington runs counter to the basic “laws of international relations, which follow the rules not of ‘ought’ or right, but of ‘is’, of interests and power.” Washington develops strategy by identifying objectives, but fails to “align mobilize-able means to achieve an end.” To remedy this, Allison recommended the United States recalibrate its strategic objectives towards both China and Russia.

Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, the United States has had “unreasonable, unrealistic objectives” towards both Russia and China, said Allison. Per Allison, the U.S. objective “is to break Russia. Putin should recant, and he should return to the script that we gave him after the end of the Cold War, in which Russia would become a democracy, and take its place in Europe as we prescribed.” Until this is done, the United States will continue to put enormous pressure on Russia through sanctions and other measures.

Regarding China, which the Trump administration has also designated as a strategic adversary, the only choice Washington has on offer for Beijing is, according to Allison, to “accept our prescriptions for it to become more like us and take its place in the American-led international order, which we designated for it.” However, such an objective is utterly unachievable because as Allison said, paraphrasing the late Singaporean statesmen Lee Kuan Yew, “China will insist on being accepted as China, not as an honorary member of the West.” Allison concluded by making the case that rather than pursuing the unrealistic objective of changing China, U.S. strategy should “seek to create a coalition of forces that would be at least a counterbalance to aspirations of China that we judge unreasonable. Russia should, in principle, be part of that coalition.” (Although, it is important to note that both Allison and Simes perceive any U.S. opening to Russia as an exceedingly remote possibility at present.)

At the beginning of the discussion, Jacob Heilbrunn remarked that “Today, Donald Trump was described in a leading newspaper as ‘an infantile narcissist with an unstable mind and a detonator of chaos.’ No this was not the Washington Post or the New York Times , but a leading Moscow newspaper.” The relationship with Russia is at a post-Cold War nadir.

Due to candidate Donald Trump’s unorthodox foreign policy rhetoric on the campaign trail, there was speculation that he might re-orient U.S. foreign policy in a more realist direction, prioritizing relations with America’s two biggest major power competitors: China and Russia. Yet, two years into the Trump administration, relations with both countries have deteriorated considerably. There is widespread discussion in Washington of a “new cold war,” which many American pundits characterize as a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.

How did a president that many saw as willing to take a more realist foreign policy approach, a key element of which would have been seeking to restore some equilibrium in the U.S.-China- Russia strategic triangle, end up presiding over simultaneous, ideologically charged confrontations with Moscow and Beijing? According to Simes, although Trump displayed some “realist impulses” as a candidate, as president, he is not interested in “systematic strategic thinking” and like his immediate predecessors, eschews serious strategic analysis. Regrettably, the costs of America’s inability to think strategically have been all too predictable, the foremost of which is an increasingly close alignment between Russia and China.

John S. Van Oudenaren is assistant director at the Center for the National Interest.


2019-01-14 12:51:22
2018-10-17 11:26:11
4371448 复 4370427
粗茶淡饭粗茶淡饭`10009`/bbsIMG/face/0066.gif`70`893`2463`26416`从四品上:太中大夫|宣威将军`2006-02-07 07:02:58`0
2018-10-17 11:26:11 帖 43714484370427 -- 粗茶淡饭 待认可未通过。 偏要看 耗株钱:1

2018-10-13 16:24:15
4370904 复 4370427
故乡在喀什
故乡在喀什`70356`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`10206`23246`205968`从二品:光禄大夫|镇军大将军`2011-03-05 16:12:07`0
2 川普是自毁长城 42

国家的帐和公司的帐一样吗? 川普认为一样,美国很多人也认为应该一样。

结果美国的格局就成了这样。

短期来看,油价起来了, 俄罗斯的活路就有了。这应该是美国给俄罗斯输送的最大利益了。

长期来看,大家好像都慢慢反应过来一个事实: 没有美国,美元,美国人,这个世界似乎也不差。

至于美国失去的,账面上没有反应,所以不算损失。只是满血复活的俄罗斯,晃而不倒的欧洲,和依然前行的中国,都是在离美国越行越远啊!


  • 本帖 2 回复
通宝推:呆头呆脑,朴石,
最后于2018-10-13 20:23:06改,共2次;
2018-10-13 16:24:15
3 美国好象是把祖传的宝贝拿出来换了点钱 4

花了二百多年建设好的人设坍塌了。


  • 本帖 1 回复
2018-10-15 04:29:38
2018-10-15 20:09:27
4371161 复 4371067
故乡在喀什
故乡在喀什`70356`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`10206`23246`205968`从二品:光禄大夫|镇军大将军`2011-03-05 16:12:07`0
4 崽卖爷田 14

川普现在领导的美国是: 崽卖爷田 - 不心疼。

美国的霸权是拿两次世界大战的血换来的,是拿和苏联全球死磕夺来的,是拿经营全球贸易赚来的。

从某种意义上来讲,川普和戈地图有的一拼。


  • 本帖 2 回复
2018-10-15 20:09:27
2018-11-09 04:08:01
4375138 复 4371161
老百姓万岁老百姓万岁`71821`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`491`647`6944`正八品上:给事郎|宣节校尉`2011-04-21 03:54:02`0
5 我觉得现在的美国政商合作在唱红白脸。 3

美国这种政商勾结的体制以前靠绝对的实力就可以独步天下,现在后面的发展了些于是采取了不同以往的手段而已,本质还是尽可能利益最大化。弄一个特朗普表面上看冒冒失失任性满嘴跑火车朝令夕改言而无信不按常理出牌,其实人家这叫乱拳打死老师傅,弄的对手那些所谓的高层们高参们智囊们胆战心惊六神无主顾此失彼,于是这些三高们又想起了资本家们,但怯与美国的淫威和自己的那点黔技以及百姓碎片化的实施,心虚的狠啊。可想而知,战战兢兢哆哆嗦嗦去和美国资本家讨好,人家不狠宰你宰谁?估计美国政客们正和资本家们背后偷着笑呢,敲诈的前提就是先恐吓。


2018-11-09 04:08:01
2018-10-18 23:43:28
4371636 复 4371161
独立寒秋HK
独立寒秋HK`72509`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`8896`23718`204251`从二品:光禄大夫|镇军大将军`2011-05-17 22:36:00`0
5 他也是病急乱投医 5

没什么正招了,就出歪招吧。

反正老路看着没出路,矛盾太大,新路在哪儿也找不着,索性死马当活马医,换个打王八拳的床破试试。


通宝推:故乡在喀什,
2018-10-18 23:43:28
2018-10-14 11:25:10
4370954 复 4370904
赛昆仑赛昆仑`1955`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`1198`157`6509`正八品上:给事郎|宣节校尉`2004-01-07 20:27:43`0
3 中国到现在还没有真正意义上的美国买办! 7

所以这次所谓的贸易战最终结果就是没有结果!最有可能成为买办的行业让川普几乎给毁了!看看中兴通讯就知道米买办如果成了会有什么结果!而且这些洋买办资本换谁都一样!

郭爆料也可以说是一种买办,但米爹不信任他罢了!

官僚资本和买办资本还没有同流,是中国人民的福祉吗?


  • 本帖 1 回复
2018-10-14 11:25:10
2018-10-14 23:17:26
4371004 复 4370954
故乡在喀什
故乡在喀什`70356`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`10206`23246`205968`从二品:光禄大夫|镇军大将军`2011-03-05 16:12:07`0
4 官僚资本和买办资本还没有同流,是中国人民的福祉吗? 14

官僚资本和买办资本还没有同流,是中国人民的福祉吗?

当然。

官僚资本和买办资本同流在中国是有先例的,1911到1949走的就是这条道路。那一段时光有福祉这种东西吗?

所以现在应该还可以。


2018-10-14 23:17:26
2018-10-10 12:41:00
4370564 复 4370427
青衣江水
青衣江水`53026`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`9820`5214`77415`正三品:金紫光禄大夫|冠军大将军`2010-02-13 23:26:57`0
2 鲍威尔发话这活原来是基辛格干的 13

中国现在是面临新的变局,冷面以对,对美国晓以利害。前国务卿奥尔布赖特也已经看到其中的陷阱美前国务卿批特朗普外交政策. 一但局势变到中美没有互信,中国放手与俄国进一步整合,中俄合力对付美国,将是美国的最差选择。那时,美国即使不会步苏联的后尘,也会焦头烂额。特力钦大概可以完成任务了。

---------------

从2010年米航母重进渤海开始,米国百般挑衅米国政商界一声不吭,中国坚决反击了,要打痛米国了,基辛格就跳出来装好人,呼吁中国与米国加强互信,不要恶化局势。

看样子基撑不了一两年了,所以暂时换了个新马甲。选鲍威尔替代是因为他有张黑皮,就像奥巴马一样,有欺骗性。

米国人是心战大师,农夫与蛇的故事重演不得


  • 本帖 2 回复
2018-10-10 12:41:00
2018-10-14 08:05:59
4370941 复 4370564
天堂天堂`34316`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`23860`18772`230648`正五品下:朝议大夫|宁远将军`2009-05-11 02:22:33`0
3 只要智商不欠费,这种伎俩好对付得很 4

一,一力降十会,

二,凭他几路来,我只一路去,一个字,滚!


2018-10-14 08:05:59
3 没什么奇怪的,有人负责唱白脸,就有人负责唱红脸 1

算不上高明。


2018-10-10 21:29:31
2018-10-10 05:24:17
4370532 复 4370427
mcpssxmcpssx`22568`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`71`859`11409`正七品上:朝请郎|致果校尉`2008-02-25 22:29:16`0
2 中俄加起来也没用,只会消耗中国的经济能力

贸易战之下,还去结盟俄罗斯,真的是毛用没有,俄罗斯与什么经济能力?卢布稳定吗?


  • 本帖 2 回复
2018-10-10 05:24:17
2018-10-14 05:26:03
4370933 复 4370532
ccceee
ccceee`82531`/bbsIMG/face/0000.gif`70`3745`4585`48484`正八品上:给事郎|宣节校尉`2012-03-19 01:19:22`0
3 中美表面上有互补性,实际上是美消费中生产。 9

美国印美元让中国劳动,以中国产品为管道吸世界血,当然美对中也要付出一定的逆差代价,但从美国资本的收益付出上,还是有大利可图。但中俄若结盟,俄付出的可不是绿纸,是实实在在的黑黄金。


2018-10-14 05:26:03
帖内引用

/ 5 首页 上页 下页 末页