well，你读一下他的原话，别光看不知道转过几手的中文解读，我没觉得有什么问题 https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/opinions_196300.htm JENS STOLTENBERG: So first to the question of whether peace is possible. Yes, peace is possible. The question is what kind of peace? Because if Ukraine withdraw its forces and stop fighting, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent, sovereign nation in Europe. If President Putin stops fighting, then we’ll have peace. So the dilemma is, of course, that peace is always possible. Surrender can provide peace. But as we have seen, the Ukrainians, they don’t accept peace at any price. They are actually willing to pay a very high price for their independence. And again, Finland is a country that really knows the price for peace and also the price for independence and being a sovereign nation. And it’s not for me to judge how high price the Ukrainians should be willing to pay. I mean, we pay a price because we provide support, we see the economic effects of the economic sanctions. But there is no doubt, as you saidSauli, that the highest price is paid by Ukrainians every day. And therefore it’s for them to judge, not for me, what is the price they are willing to pay, for peace and for independence? So, that’s, in a way, the moral dilemma. Peace is possible, but the question, how much are you willing to forsake to pay for getting that peace? The absolute best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is for President Putin to end this senseless war. We have to remember, every morning, every day, every hour during the day, there is one man, one nation that is responsible for that – and that is President Putin. Then we have difficult dilemmas, difficult choices, but it is President Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine that has created those dilemmas. And they can be solved by . . . from his side by ending the war. Then, one more thing on this, is that as President Zelensky has stated many times, this war will end at the negotiating table. The question is what kind of position will the Ukrainians have when they negotiate a solution? Our responsibility is to make that position as strong as possible. We know that there is a very close link between what you can achieve at the negotiating table and your position at the battlefield. So our military support to them is a way to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table when they, hopefully soon, will sit there and negotiate the peace agreement. So that was ‘peace is possible’ – that’s not the question anyway, the question is: what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory? How much independence? How much sovereignty? How much freedom? How much democracy are you willing to sacrifice for peace? And that’s a very difficult moral dilemma. And it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgement. Our responsibility is to support them. Then, on escalation, I think it’s extremely important that we remember there is a danger of escalation. Also, as you said this morning, a horizontal escalation, we always see a kind of vertical escalation – more fighting, more suffering, heavier weapons in Ukraine – but escalation beyond Ukraine. And NATO has been very aware of this risk since the beginning, actually before the invasion, because we have to remember that when the invasion came, we were very prepared. In one way, we have been prepared for this eventuality since 2014, with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the Cold War, with the battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance, more defence spending, higher readiness, new command structure and all that. And then it was, actually, when we met, I remember we met, we discussed the possibility of an invasion of Ukraine. We had very precise intelligence on the nation. Russia absolutely denied. We had the meeting in the NATO-Russia Council in January, I think it was, where that was the last serious effort from our side to find a negotiated way out of this. Russia said, ‘We have no plans whatsoever to invade.’ They actually sent out pictures, days beforehand, showing some battle tanks moving over this bridge […] the strait between Azov and the Black Sea, saying that they were actually withdrawing their forces. Then they invaded. And then, that morning, we activated NATO’s defence plans and deployed significant additional troops, because we were prepared, and now we have 40,000 NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. Why did we do that? To prevent escalation. Because we have this increased presence to send an absolutely clear message to President Putin, to remove any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding in Moscow about our readiness to protect and defend every Ally. And as long as that’s clear, there will be no attack. So our deterrence is to prevent escalation. I’m sad that we are in such a situation, because it would have been better for all of us if we could spend all that money we now are spending on deterrence, more weapons, more artillery, more missiles, more troops, more ships, more planes – on education, health, infrastructure. But in a more dangerous world, we have to invest in security and that’s exactly what we’ll do to prevent escalation. So, I know I’m being a bit long, but we are . . . NATO is actually doing two things to prevent escalation. One is deterrence. As we do – and we’ll also make new decisions at the Madrid summit to strengthen further our posture: investing more, more troops, more readiness. But the only thing we do, is that we don’t move into Ukraine. And that’s not an easy decision. In my conversations, my talks, with the Ukrainian leaders, including President Zelensky, it’s not easy to tell them that we are not going to impose a no-fly zone. They asked for a no-fly zone, we said no. They wanted us to – and some Allies as well – there has been some proposals that we should move with creating a humanitarian corridor. We’re not doing that. There have also been discussions about NATO reinforcing a naval corridor to get food out. To not do that, it’s not easy, because it has a cost for the Ukrainians. But we . . . but the reason why we don’t move in with NATO troops in Ukraine is to prevent escalation. So we are always, since the beginning of this war, been very mindful about the need, the moral obligation, to support a country fighting for their freedom, for democracy, for their independence. But at the same time, preventing escalation by not being directly involved in the conflict. Then the last question was about resilience?
well，你读一下他的原话，别光看不知道转过几手的中文解读，我没觉得有什么问题 https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/opinions_196300.htm JENS STOLTENBERG: So first to the question of whether peace is possible. Yes, peace is possible. The question is what kind of peace? Because if Ukraine withdraw its forces and stop fighting, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent, sovereign nation in Europe. If President Putin stops fighting, then we’ll have peace. So the dilemma is, of course, that peace is always possible. Surrender can provide peace. But as we have seen, the Ukrainians, they don’t accept peace at any price. They are actually willing to pay a very high price for their independence. And again, Finland is a country that really knows the price for peace and also the price for independence and being a sovereign nation. And it’s not for me to judge how high price the Ukrainians should be willing to pay. I mean, we pay a price because we provide support, we see the economic effects of the economic sanctions. But there is no doubt, as you saidSauli, that the highest price is paid by Ukrainians every day. And therefore it’s for them to judge, not for me, what is the price they are willing to pay, for peace and for independence? So, that’s, in a way, the moral dilemma. Peace is possible, but the question, how much are you willing to forsake to pay for getting that peace? The absolute best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is for President Putin to end this senseless war. We have to remember, every morning, every day, every hour during the day, there is one man, one nation that is responsible for that – and that is President Putin. Then we have difficult dilemmas, difficult choices, but it is President Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine that has created those dilemmas. And they can be solved by . . . from his side by ending the war. Then, one more thing on this, is that as President Zelensky has stated many times, this war will end at the negotiating table. The question is what kind of position will the Ukrainians have when they negotiate a solution? Our responsibility is to make that position as strong as possible. We know that there is a very close link between what you can achieve at the negotiating table and your position at the battlefield. So our military support to them is a way to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table when they, hopefully soon, will sit there and negotiate the peace agreement. So that was ‘peace is possible’ – that’s not the question anyway, the question is: what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory? How much independence? How much sovereignty? How much freedom? How much democracy are you willing to sacrifice for peace? And that’s a very difficult moral dilemma. And it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgement. Our responsibility is to support them. Then, on escalation, I think it’s extremely important that we remember there is a danger of escalation. Also, as you said this morning, a horizontal escalation, we always see a kind of vertical escalation – more fighting, more suffering, heavier weapons in Ukraine – but escalation beyond Ukraine. And NATO has been very aware of this risk since the beginning, actually before the invasion, because we have to remember that when the invasion came, we were very prepared. In one way, we have been prepared for this eventuality since 2014, with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the Cold War, with the battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance, more defence spending, higher readiness, new command structure and all that. And then it was, actually, when we met, I remember we met, we discussed the possibility of an invasion of Ukraine. We had very precise intelligence on the nation. Russia absolutely denied. We had the meeting in the NATO-Russia Council in January, I think it was, where that was the last serious effort from our side to find a negotiated way out of this. Russia said, ‘We have no plans whatsoever to invade.’ They actually sent out pictures, days beforehand, showing some battle tanks moving over this bridge […] the strait between Azov and the Black Sea, saying that they were actually withdrawing their forces. Then they invaded. And then, that morning, we activated NATO’s defence plans and deployed significant additional troops, because we were prepared, and now we have 40,000 NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. Why did we do that? To prevent escalation. Because we have this increased presence to send an absolutely clear message to President Putin, to remove any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding in Moscow about our readiness to protect and defend every Ally. And as long as that’s clear, there will be no attack. So our deterrence is to prevent escalation. I’m sad that we are in such a situation, because it would have been better for all of us if we could spend all that money we now are spending on deterrence, more weapons, more artillery, more missiles, more troops, more ships, more planes – on education, health, infrastructure. But in a more dangerous world, we have to invest in security and that’s exactly what we’ll do to prevent escalation. So, I know I’m being a bit long, but we are . . . NATO is actually doing two things to prevent escalation. One is deterrence. As we do – and we’ll also make new decisions at the Madrid summit to strengthen further our posture: investing more, more troops, more readiness. But the only thing we do, is that we don’t move into Ukraine. And that’s not an easy decision. In my conversations, my talks, with the Ukrainian leaders, including President Zelensky, it’s not easy to tell them that we are not going to impose a no-fly zone. They asked for a no-fly zone, we said no. They wanted us to – and some Allies as well – there has been some proposals that we should move with creating a humanitarian corridor. We’re not doing that. There have also been discussions about NATO reinforcing a naval corridor to get food out. To not do that, it’s not easy, because it has a cost for the Ukrainians. But we . . . but the reason why we don’t move in with NATO troops in Ukraine is to prevent escalation. So we are always, since the beginning of this war, been very mindful about the need, the moral obligation, to support a country fighting for their freedom, for democracy, for their independence. But at the same time, preventing escalation by not being directly involved in the conflict. Then the last question was about resilience?
Brandon刚又给了10亿美金
干脆把美国打个包送乌克兰好了，fxxk！
你这什么混逻辑。如果中国都不承认立陶宛是个独立国家，又怎么会在立陶宛有大使？
你看中国现在还有驻立陶宛大使吗？现在和立陶宛的关系是代办处，和台湾在立陶宛的机构一个级别。 立陶宛也把驻中国大使撤回去了。你想办去立陶宛的签证也办不了，同样，你想在立陶宛办去中国签证也没有，在立陶宛要去中国以俄罗斯人身份在莫斯科办理签证才能来中国。
中立现在不管是外交和经济，交流是0，是真的0.
打赌吧。这场战争俄罗斯输定了。 他想赢除非从欧美的身上踩过去。 你以为美国的租借法案是闹着玩的吗？ 现在战争朝着我预计的方向发展下去了。战争在像阿富汗战争方向发展，长期化战争慢慢拖死俄罗斯。 欧洲今年年底以前会慢慢找到俄罗斯能源的替代品。 不信等几个月来挖坟。
你没看五月份美国人的民意调查，37%的人觉得美国的援助不够。36%的人觉得刚好，只有14%的人觉得援助太多。 美国民意代表美国的态度。只要乌克兰不投降，美国就会一直出钱出力支持乌克兰打下去。 不要小看美国人的正义感。
自己为充满的“正义感”had screwed这个世界太多了，每每留下正义感们的烂摊子
如果美国人没有正义感，任由俄罗斯吞并乌克兰的话， 那么，整个世界的秩序就乱套了。 大国都恃强凌弱欺负小国了。所有的弱国也就没有存在的必要了。
那是因为乌克兰要钱要的美国人还没感觉到痛。 一旦感觉到痛了，美国人翻脸会和美国政府一样快。 什么乌克兰人的自由，什么乌克兰的领土，什么乌克兰人的命，有我都吃不起大牛排了重要？ 实话说，没有！ 这话放在四海皆为准。 我可以帮助你，但那是帮助，是在力所能及的情况下，想让我吃糠咽菜支持你，不可能的！
美国愿意接受不一样的声音我相信，而不是到处制造麻烦，我觉得美国需要这种不同的声音而不是认为只有一种声音是正义的，呵呵
那是你认为的，分分合合本就是世界常态，世界因此大乱人类因此灭绝了吗
废纸？你搞笑？打仗不要钱吗。金融战是没有输的。不管你承不承认。
对别的地方的一场战争的观点，本来就不是是不是fit it的重要考量。如果非要啥事都和大多数人一样的话，您是不是会觉得不信教的也不适合生活在这里？不出生在这里的人不适合生活在这里？英语不是母语的人不适合生活在这里？还是对橄榄球棒球篮球都不感兴趣的人不适合生活在这里？
美国不直接参与战争，现在的这种打仗的节奏，美国怎么可能会感觉到痛？ 痛苦的是乌克兰和俄罗斯。
自己不痛苦所以就有“正义感”？自己痛苦了就边儿去吧，是这意思？精致利己主义正义感get
“亡国灭种”就一定比“更换政权”邪恶？“亡国灭种”表示还愿意接手，“更换政权”就是把你玩坏了，连烂摊子都不收。然后再让你自己自生自灭。
楼上纸醉金迷同学的正义感好像不是太在意乌克兰痛不痛。看起来只要俄罗斯够痛，她就觉得满意了。。。
美国当然不止一种声音了！ 但是美国什么都是投票选举。所以都是尊重多数人都意见。 大多数人支持乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯，所以租借法案才会在两院里高票通过。 大多数民意都支持乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯，不管是哪个党派当权，都会一直支持乌克兰的卫国战争。如果对俄罗斯绥靖政策了，这个党肯定下台，并且多年都无法翻身。
呵呵，乌克兰的痛是俄罗斯造成的啊，所以他们憎恨俄罗斯，不愿意投降，我们当然尊重乌克兰人民的选择了。
凭什么他们就是正义？反对的就邪恶还是不正义了？你这定义好莫名其妙
还是让俄罗斯赢吧，至少世界太平。俄罗斯要是输了，他会把大家都带上。
不要在华人上放嘴炮。有种跟你公司的美国同事讲你支持俄罗斯发动的侵略战争，希望乌克兰早点割地投降。 或者发个朋友圈，让周围的华人朋友们看看你的观点也可以。 我们支持乌克兰的可是正大光明的，我们参加教会组织的支援乌克兰的活动，我都是参加的并且发了朋友圈的。
可是正义感们只在一边摇旗呐喊没人下场快速结束战争，长期战争那个国家的老百姓是最苦的
对于乌克兰老百姓来说无论谁赢，快速结束战争是最好的，然而现在都在拱火恨不得烂摊子拖垮俄罗斯，老百姓怎么样才不是他们要考虑的，还正义感。。。可笑
真怀疑你在美国工作过吗？ 办公室不谈政治是基本的尊重。 这包括选举的时候投的谁家的票。
下次选川普再要回。
人家不是说了在教会工作吗
我们部门挣$16/小时的劳模大妈clerk就公开说希望乌克兰投降。通胀已经让她觉得无法生存了。通胀这么严重，大家都在骂拜登，骂民主党. 还骂他们自己的老百姓都民不聊生了，还给乌克兰送400亿，
上面那位层主去的应该是犹太教教会，乌克兰总统总理都是犹太人。
热啊，拜登政府还在不顾美国民生没完没了慷他人之慨援助，差不多得了真是心烦了
你难道没有你公司同事的Facebook，他们发支持乌克兰的朋友圈你难道装作看不到？虽然不当面讲政治，但是你管不着人家私下里的朋友圈啊。当然如果你跟同事们不熟悉，关系不好。人家自然不会把Facebook账号告诉你，就算你主动问人家要了，人家也会屏蔽你不让你看到她的朋友圈的。
感觉美国人已经开始厌恶乌克兰了，上周在办公室一群人大骂泽伦斯基，觉得他腐败透顶，还对欧美国家各种要挟
得了吧，把俄罗斯搞垮才是全世界人民的福报。至此世界总算可以和平了。 俄罗斯一旦赢了，呵呵那就是大国鲸吞小国，暴力征服的黑暗时代到来了。 俄罗斯一旦赢了，他不会只满足侵吞乌克兰的，他会要更多，甚至中国都有可能遭殃。
民调啪啪打你的脸啊！ 你身边这些人应该属于那14%里面的。
您前面说在这事上如果不同意大多数人的观点，就不fit in，就该考虑离开（您后来把这贴改成说别的了）。
我只是针对您这说法回应而已。我既没说我支持俄罗斯，也没说我认为应该还是不应该去和周围人说这个。您转换话题说那些干嘛呢？
如果和周围人观点不同，还故意去刺激别人挑起争论，这是您的爱好么？您要不要找周围俄罗斯人去说您的正义观点？反正我现实生活中没这爱好 - 在这里有。
当初希特勒上台也是民选的哦，发动二战也是有民调大部分德国人民支持的哦，正义咩？
在国内办公室吧? 美国正经点公司是不容许争论政治问题的， 会被HR警告的。
还有二战时的日本人民打你脸。。。回错了，是回纸醉金迷同学的，哈哈
民调还说希拉里铁定当总统呢! 我们部门的底层员工一年就挣三万多，都入不敷出了，还勒紧裤腰带支持乌克兰？真是何不食用肉糜
这咋展开，你看这的人的评论和耳边炮火隆隆的人能一样吗。好像$2一个月订来看看呗。老报纸是scan的，不是电子版的。
我删掉那句话的原因是因为怕被那层主举报，然后关我小黑屋。 实际上我也没觉得我说的有什么错。你在一个公司里面工作，fit in 公司的文化不是最重要的一条吗？如果你不fit in，继续呆着难道不觉得痛苦吗？反正我不喜欢这个公司的文化，不fit in的话，我肯定跳槽走人的。 再放大一点，如果你生活美国，众所周知美国是民主国家，什么都是靠投票。大体来说，左派右派势力还是比较均衡的，很多决策上面也是一半同意一半反对这种。 但是像对乌克兰援助条款，90%通过这种。明显是大多数美国民众都支持乌克兰抵抗侵略的。但是你不想支持，你想乌克兰早点割地投降。但是政府偏偏执行跟你意见相反的决策，拿你的缴税的钱去支持乌克兰。你难道不郁闷吗？人活着不就是为了活得开心吗？
都是 URM 谁敢惹？工资虽然低，政治地位高高的, 天天骂民主党骂拜登毫无顾忌。 不要以为美国人都被洗脑了。你整天张嘴国内闭嘴国内的，以为身边几个白左就能代表所有美国人了？
MM，金融战这次是彻底没有拿下大毛啊 你怎么怕连这个都不知道？ 否则物价油价没有这么发疯地涨 还有股市狂泻
这次没有个赢家 欧美，大毛，二毛 都输了 赢得是你看不见的那帮人 在数钱
别说那么多有的没的，我们看中期选举结果好了。
你在美国吗？我20多年真还没见过老美在办公室公开谈政治，政治观点是隐私，一般会在网上说，但不会在熟人同事之间谈论，这点和中国完全不一样。
自己看看隔壁那个表格，论通胀的话水生火热还是俄罗斯比欧美厉害多了。 另外我相信俄罗斯当地华人录的视频。当地超市物价和身边人的生活处境，更可靠一些。 俄罗斯人的工资可比欧美低多了。 这还只打了3个月而已，等再过一年，三年五年后再说吧。经济制裁的效果往往长期影响更明显一些。。
我前面说的很清楚了吧：对俄乌战争的观点，只是“文化”中很小的一部分。这点小不同，能比信不信教更大？能比您母语是什么更大？能比您是不是在美国出生，长大更大？能比您根本对周围人感兴趣的体育没兴趣的差别更大？
这点小问题，别说我未必和周围人观点不同，就算不同，为啥要郁闷？看戏就因为一点儿剧情不顺心就弃剧？反正我不会。俄乌战争这小戏码我看着还挺有意思的呢。。。
我们就是政府部门，头头们为了选举各种恶斗，公开聊政治的不要太多. 不少头头们都有官司在身上，各种lawsuit, indictment 不要太多. 不少部门员工还要去帮头头campaign, 甚至还有接到传票为头头的lawsuit作证的
所以，你要说什么呢？ 不明白 是俄罗斯惨了还是欧美惨了 还是大家都惨了 没有大赢家 只有幕后数钱的 不是说了吗？
抄底俄罗斯股市的可发了 可惜战争起始我们买不了
你别那么激动 逮谁都要说一下呀
我想说的是，欧美这次是铁了心要搞垮俄罗斯，所以俄罗斯这次输定了啊！ 俄罗斯战场上要填命烧钱，后方被经济制裁，人民生活水生火热。 这次战争欧美伤5，俄罗斯伤50，欧美底子还比俄罗斯雄厚得多，你说俄罗斯怎么赢？
如果（我只是说如果），欧美愿意接受总伤害100，但俄罗斯愿意接受5000的伤害，结果是如何呢？结果就是欧美先退让。
那么从面子上，不是俄罗斯赢么？至于俄罗斯里子是不是亏大了，那就无所谓了，我们只是看戏的，又不是生活在俄罗斯的俄罗斯人呀。
我跟你赌，我赌俄罗斯肯定赢，乌东肯定独立或者被并入俄罗斯，乌克兰永远无法加入北约
那还不是媒体的舆论引导，如果欧美媒体大量报导乌克兰镇压屠杀乌东俄罗斯人几年，亚宿营残忍杀害俄罗斯人的照片，禁止俄语等文化灭绝政策，再宣传一下乌克兰境内俄罗斯人不屈不挠的抗争史，你看看欧美老百姓支持乌克兰的还多不多，
所以才要建真理部嘛
上个月听说已经打过边界了，加上米国和北约援助，现在估计到莫斯科，准备包围克里姆林宫活捉普京了。乌克兰必胜！
无所谓。。。 反正钱花了，爱干嘛干嘛呗。。。
我的蔓蔓，乌克兰的难民都是金发碧眼的白人 与咱们小黄人，小黑人，小阿拉伯人不一样
那我们就等着看吧。
俄罗斯人欧美人其实都是祖上有关联的白人，你为什么觉得俄罗斯人会比欧美人更能吃苦？如果你说我们中国人比白人更能忍耐更能吃苦耐劳，我倒是会信的。 历史上俄罗斯人民推翻政府的历史多了去了。倒是中国人民很能忍受的。 至于欧美人民，看看他们在二战中的情况。现在已经好太多了。何况现在还可以wfh，还可以用电用太阳能，欧美本身也没参战，没死人没花太多钱在战争里面。 当然最后俄罗斯耗不过欧美了。苏联时期如此，这次比苏联更弱的俄罗斯更是如此了。
隔壁杀人了就能侵略？就能把领土占了，那以后大国只需在边境上派一些移民过去小国那边，然后挑起冲突，杀人也好被杀也好，总之，最后就可以武装吞并了？那以后小国都别玩了
那些ID就是装傻。 还说俄罗斯会赢笑死人了。如果俄罗斯真的赢了全世界人民以后都没好日子过了。大家都可以学习俄罗斯，往临近的国家移民掺沙子，然后再挑动民族矛盾，然后再找借口出兵侵占。大家都比谁更不要脸，谁的拳头更大好了。 正因为大家都明白这点，所以才会有那么多国家支持乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯。 俄罗斯赢得战争只存在于俄罗斯和国内大外宣的宣传稿里。呵呵。
这话有根据吗？
拜登都骂演员了，说早就跟演员说俄罗斯要出兵，演员还不知道收敛，结果惹祸上身。北约秘书长更过分，居然说考虑让乌克兰放弃一些领土换取和平的可能性。摆明里乌克兰要被抛弃了，你居然还说俄罗斯赢不了，醒醒吧
法德意三国领导人抵达基辅 一致支持乌克兰反抗俄罗斯侵略 2022年6月16日 16:56 美国之音
法国总统马克龙、德国总理朔尔茨和意大利总理德拉吉星期四（2022年6月16日）抵达基辅访问，对乌克兰反抗俄罗斯侵略表达支持。 马克龙说，“这是一个重要的时刻。这是我们向乌克兰人民传送的团结一致的信号。” 这次访问正值欧盟委员会考虑是否建议让乌克兰加入欧盟。 三位欧洲领导人预计会在基辅会见乌克兰总统泽连斯基。 星期三，美国宣布向乌克兰提供价值10亿美元的新一批军事援助。这是华盛顿迄今向基辅运送的第12批也是最大一批武器装备，以帮助乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯入侵。目前，俄军正在乌东顿巴斯地区缓慢却步步紧逼地推进。 前美国国防部发言人、现任国家安全委员会发言人的约翰·柯比(John Kirby)星期三在白宫对记者们说，这批援助包括3.5亿美元直接来自美军的设备，包括18门高威力移动式远程榴弹炮、3.6万发炮弹和18辆拖曳这些榴弹炮的战术车辆以及更多的弹药和其它装备。
柯比说，余下的6.5亿美元援助，包括海岸防御系统、无线电、夜视仪和其它设备，将由五角大楼通过被称为“乌克兰安全援助倡议”的机制从武器制造商那里采购。 柯比说，自从俄罗斯2月24日开始入侵以来，美国已经向乌克兰提供了超过9.14亿美元的人道援助，包括拜登总统星期三宣布的又一批2.25亿美元的援助。总统在一项声明中说，新的资金将用来资助饮用水、关键的医疗物资和卫生保健、食品、栖身所并为家庭提供购买基本物品所需要的现金。 “乌克兰人民的勇敢、韧性和坚定继续鼓舞着世界，”拜登说。“在乌克兰人民为他们的自由而战之际，美国与我们的盟友和伙伴一道，将毫不动摇地信守我们对他们的承诺。” 在拜登宣布新的援乌方案之际，美国国防部长劳埃德·奥斯汀(Lloyd Austin)在布鲁塞尔与来自超过45个国家的盟国防长开会。这些国家一直在向乌军提供武器。 俄罗斯对乌克兰的入侵已经持续了三个半月。战争初期，俄军未能推翻泽连斯基政府或攻占首都基辅。俄军随后调整目标，目前正试图全面控制乌克兰东部地区。 奥斯汀在为乌克兰防御联络组会议做开幕讲话时说，西方盟国仍然“致力于采取更多行动”来帮助乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯的入侵。他说，目前是“战场的关键时刻”。
你们德国总理够穷的 自己拎个破包
翻墙出来一次也不容易 怎么就不多花两分钟看个全部原文呢 再告诉你个不幸的消息 月底的北约峰会（邀请了日韩参加）将公布新安全战略，“打击俄罗斯”作为新重点被纳入文件
该用的招都用了，还有什么新招，又不敢直接出兵
杯水车薪啊，这十几门炮够干啥的？鱼叉导弹倒是好东西，再打沉两艘船就能直接把黑海舰队赶回里海去。
其实意大利前一段提出来的让双方现在就地停火倒是个好主意，给乌克兰个一两年时间把装备全部换成北约标准的，再援助几个中队的F15/F16，有北约预警机在后面指挥，再开战直接能把大毛的所谓空天军揍出屎来。俄罗斯被制裁成这个样，只能挖挖库存补充点封存三十年的T72，效果差远了。不过俄罗斯也知道，不管多困难都不能随便停战，除非乌克兰无条件投降自己解除武装。
你还没看明白欧美一直在操控战争速度和程度吗？ 如果支援太多的武器，乌克兰打得太顺利，把俄罗斯逼急了，发疯扔核弹可怎么办？ 所以支持乌克兰的力度就控制在双方可以进行长期的拉锯战的基础上的。 一旦乌克兰打不动了，武器支援力度肯定又会加大。 还有人觉得俄罗斯会赢真是可笑。
您看清楚我上贴的前提：前提是您问“你说俄罗斯怎么赢？”，所以我指出有这个可能性。
这个可能性大不大，我没办法准确评价。您有历史上俄罗斯人民推翻政府的历史，别人也有历史上俄罗斯在战争中一堆堆死人仍然撑下去的例子，所以不好说哦。。。
那大家这次就一起见证历史吧。
我无所谓啊。反正我没把话说死，谁赢不是赢啊，看戏呗。。。
不用出兵俄罗斯都打成这样，还有比这个更好的事情吗？大毛这次自投罗网，慢慢被放血，这么好的机会欧美怎么可能放过呢？
花钱放老虎的血有必要，但是俄罗斯打成这个德性，常规战争怕是连病猫都算不上，对北约基本毫无威胁。不觉得北约会继续花大力气支持，放猫的血有啥意义，至于正义，呵呵吧。毕竟欧美自己现在都是焦头烂额。本版不是好多人都对拜登撒币乌克兰很有怨气么。
拜登说的是这等事情（unprovoked invasion)二战以来还没发生过，他有数据表明俄罗斯要侵略。但是泽连斯基不想听。 后面“不知道收敛，结果惹祸上身”是你自己加的。 北约秘书长说的是和平是有可能的，问题在于你愿意为和平付出多少主权，多少土地，多少民主，多少自由？这由每个国家自己决定，我们要做的就是支持他们。 结果到你那成了北约叫乌克兰放弃领土换和平。
很多难民在欧洲不得意，又返回了乌克兰，返回之后发现完全没有工作，之后又二次返回了欧洲。
“北约秘书长说的是和平是有可能的，问题在于你愿意为和平付出多少主权，多少土地，多少民主，多少自由” 这话本来就有问题，不能怪别人挑。
正常人会说，靠努力战斗，打败侵略者去争取和平。他非要只说这种“付出主权，土地，民主，自由”的和平可能性，这意思不是很清楚么 - 就是没觉得“靠努力战斗，打败侵略者”是个现实的可能而已。
当然，这只是他个人看法，甚至你可以说是他的口误。所以没必要过度引申成北约的政策，但别人挑他几句，这完全没问题。
有啊，你家CNN不播而已，叙利亚一万五千刀买一个火箭发射器。加沙已经用上了欧洲赠送的苏联式武器。
没那么容易的，乌克兰现在前线非常困难，因为中俄之外苏联口径的弹药存货已经被搜刮干净了，乌克兰原有的重装备现在基本上都是些废铁。比如152mm的炮弹，现在只有波兰和捷克还有一些很小的生产线。
北约现在正在做的事情是在战时把乌克兰的整个军队系统从华约标准换成北约标准，不仅仅是增援几门炮那么简单。这个过程中能打仗的乌军精锐在前线不断被消耗，剩下的所谓国土防御部队其实质量和士气都很成问题，几个人合用一个火箭筒，俄军那边经常有五六十岁的中老年士兵被俘虏的视频
嗯，很多网友都觉得乌克兰男人培训一个星期就能当海军陆战队用了
well，你读一下他的原话，别光看不知道转过几手的中文解读，我没觉得有什么问题
https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/opinions_196300.htm
JENS STOLTENBERG: So first to the question of whether peace is possible. Yes, peace is possible. The question is what kind of peace? Because if Ukraine withdraw its forces and stop fighting, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent, sovereign nation in Europe. If President Putin stops fighting, then we’ll have peace. So the dilemma is, of course, that peace is always possible. Surrender can provide peace. But as we have seen, the Ukrainians, they don’t accept peace at any price. They are actually willing to pay a very high price for their independence. And again, Finland is a country that really knows the price for peace and also the price for independence and being a sovereign nation. And it’s not for me to judge how high price the Ukrainians should be willing to pay. I mean, we pay a price because we provide support, we see the economic effects of the economic sanctions. But there is no doubt, as you said Sauli, that the highest price is paid by Ukrainians every day. And therefore it’s for them to judge, not for me, what is the price they are willing to pay, for peace and for independence? So, that’s, in a way, the moral dilemma. Peace is possible, but the question, how much are you willing to forsake to pay for getting that peace? The absolute best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is for President Putin to end this senseless war. We have to remember, every morning, every day, every hour during the day, there is one man, one nation that is responsible for that – and that is President Putin. Then we have difficult dilemmas, difficult choices, but it is President Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine that has created those dilemmas. And they can be solved by . . . from his side by ending the war. Then, one more thing on this, is that as President Zelensky has stated many times, this war will end at the negotiating table. The question is what kind of position will the Ukrainians have when they negotiate a solution? Our responsibility is to make that position as strong as possible. We know that there is a very close link between what you can achieve at the negotiating table and your position at the battlefield. So our military support to them is a way to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table when they, hopefully soon, will sit there and negotiate the peace agreement. So that was ‘peace is possible’ – that’s not the question anyway, the question is: what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory? How much independence? How much sovereignty? How much freedom? How much democracy are you willing to sacrifice for peace? And that’s a very difficult moral dilemma. And it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgement. Our responsibility is to support them. Then, on escalation, I think it’s extremely important that we remember there is a danger of escalation. Also, as you said this morning, a horizontal escalation, we always see a kind of vertical escalation – more fighting, more suffering, heavier weapons in Ukraine – but escalation beyond Ukraine. And NATO has been very aware of this risk since the beginning, actually before the invasion, because we have to remember that when the invasion came, we were very prepared. In one way, we have been prepared for this eventuality since 2014, with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the Cold War, with the battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance, more defence spending, higher readiness, new command structure and all that. And then it was, actually, when we met, I remember we met, we discussed the possibility of an invasion of Ukraine. We had very precise intelligence on the nation. Russia absolutely denied. We had the meeting in the NATO-Russia Council in January, I think it was, where that was the last serious effort from our side to find a negotiated way out of this. Russia said, ‘We have no plans whatsoever to invade.’ They actually sent out pictures, days beforehand, showing some battle tanks moving over this bridge […] the strait between Azov and the Black Sea, saying that they were actually withdrawing their forces. Then they invaded. And then, that morning, we activated NATO’s defence plans and deployed significant additional troops, because we were prepared, and now we have 40,000 NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. Why did we do that? To prevent escalation. Because we have this increased presence to send an absolutely clear message to President Putin, to remove any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding in Moscow about our readiness to protect and defend every Ally. And as long as that’s clear, there will be no attack. So our deterrence is to prevent escalation. I’m sad that we are in such a situation, because it would have been better for all of us if we could spend all that money we now are spending on deterrence, more weapons, more artillery, more missiles, more troops, more ships, more planes – on education, health, infrastructure. But in a more dangerous world, we have to invest in security and that’s exactly what we’ll do to prevent escalation. So, I know I’m being a bit long, but we are . . . NATO is actually doing two things to prevent escalation. One is deterrence. As we do – and we’ll also make new decisions at the Madrid summit to strengthen further our posture: investing more, more troops, more readiness. But the only thing we do, is that we don’t move into Ukraine. And that’s not an easy decision. In my conversations, my talks, with the Ukrainian leaders, including President Zelensky, it’s not easy to tell them that we are not going to impose a no-fly zone. They asked for a no-fly zone, we said no. They wanted us to – and some Allies as well – there has been some proposals that we should move with creating a humanitarian corridor. We’re not doing that. There have also been discussions about NATO reinforcing a naval corridor to get food out. To not do that, it’s not easy, because it has a cost for the Ukrainians. But we . . . but the reason why we don’t move in with NATO troops in Ukraine is to prevent escalation. So we are always, since the beginning of this war, been very mindful about the need, the moral obligation, to support a country fighting for their freedom, for democracy, for their independence. But at the same time, preventing escalation by not being directly involved in the conflict. Then the last question was about resilience?
越南应该还有些152的库存吧。还有什么格鲁吉亚阿塞拜疆应该多少也留着点。中国的152榴怕是都快退役干净了，估计弹药存货也很有限。
我的评论主要是针对这里同学的评论的。所以如果他的原话并不仅是前面同学总结的：“北约秘书长说的是和平是有可能的，问题在于你愿意为和平付出多少主权，多少土地，多少民主，多少自由？这由每个国家自己决定，我们要做的就是支持他们。”
那么我的结论是，他可能没有问题，但如果是我帮他辩解，我不会这么总结他的话。
兵马未动粮草先行。俄罗斯已经挺过了最困难时期，目前世界经济局势是有利于他们的。而不利于欧洲美国。
就这还有人认为北约有余力想办法去拯救乌克兰？北约连自己都拯救不了了。
乌克兰问题欧洲和美国做了愚蠢的决策，刚横了几个月，现在就是pay back时期了。而且还是一个长期pay back。
先不说哪方正义，哪方不正义，因为这本身就是有争议的。哪怕欧洲美国自圆其说，掩耳盗铃觉得自己做的事情特别正义，但是没钱，没能源，通胀，你斗得过？人自助，天助之。NZND的行为，老天从来不会眷顾。
别赌了，网络上的赌，全部都不是认真的 你开的条件，大家都知道你赢定了 迷姐也只敢敷衍你一句，连赌注是什么也不问
让事实来决定，谁说错了，承认就可以了
不过，普通老百姓是不是buy这个借口就难说了。
dilemma这个词用的就很有意思，乌克兰不是大反攻在即，怎么会dilemma呢？
俄罗斯打的差吗？开始的时候是有点乱，但是现在步步为营，节节胜利，而且战损越来越小