dodgers 发表于 2024-10-06 11:49 是美国放弃了俄国。 当初叶利钦时候很亲美，shock therapy，后来就不关心了。结果落在普京手上。普及早期也亲美。 something happened。不知道为啥把俄国变成了反方。 应该有人写本书，How did the US lose Russia?
dodgers 发表于 2024-10-06 11:49 是美国放弃了俄国。 当初叶利钦时候很亲美，shock therapy，后来就不关心了。结果落在普京手上。普及早期也亲美。 something happened。不知道为啥把俄国变成了反方。 应该有人写本书，How did the US lose Russia?
dodgers 发表于 2024-10-06 11:49 是美国放弃了俄国。 当初叶利钦时候很亲美，shock therapy，后来就不关心了。结果落在普京手上。普及早期也亲美。 something happened。不知道为啥把俄国变成了反方。 应该有人写本书，How did the US lose Russia?
nothing happened, 或者是说 nothing has changed 美国一直把苏联/俄罗斯当成敌人 是当初俄罗斯自己被忽悠了，想热脸贴冷屁股，一心想投降，奈何美国就是不要。。呵呵。。
The Abandonment of Ukraine The American strategy in Ukraine is slowly bleeding the nation, and its people, to death. By Karl Marlantes and Elliot Ackerman September 30, 2024 Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration. On a recent trip to Ukraine, we walked through the rubble of a children’s hospital in Kyiv targeted by the Russians, toured an apartment building in Kharkiv where floor after floor had been destroyed by Russian missiles, and visited the front lines to meet with soldiers who spoke of the brutality of Russian human-wave tactics. But the most unsettling thing we saw was the American strategy in Ukraine, one that gives the Ukrainian people just enough military aid not to lose their war but not enough to win it. This strategy is slowly bleeding Ukraine, and its people, to death. Our visit was facilitated by With Honor, a bipartisan political-action committee that supports veterans in Congress, and we toured Ukraine alongside Republican and Democratic lawmakers. We are both Marine Corps veterans. We have a combined 60-year breadth of combat experience between us, including Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The horrors of war are not unfamiliar to us. Yet both of us felt deeply disturbed as we finished our trip. In Kharkiv, we met with a group of Ukrainian combat veterans. Before the war, Victoria Honcharuk, a 24-year-old medic, lived in the United States, where she’d been accepted to a graduate program at Harvard while working in New York City in investment banking. When war broke out in February 2022, she left that life behind and returned home to defend her country. Her unit of medics, composed entirely of volunteers, draws no pay. Approximately half of the friends she began service with have been killed or wounded. When she enumerated her concerns for the future, they included the safety of her family and her friends but also how she would make payments on her U.S. student loans while fighting a war for her country’s survival. When a member of our group observed that Ukraine’s future would involve young people, like her, leading and rebuilding her country, she paused and politely reminded us that they could rebuild it only if they survived. After, we drove into the nearby countryside to a field a few miles back from the front lines, where we met up with the drone unit from the 92nd Assault Brigade. It had parked tactical vehicles and an assortment of drones beneath camouflage nets to avoid aerial observation. The unit’s commander, nicknamed Achilles, walked us through a presentation of the soldiers’ capabilities. This included a live-fire demonstration of one of their first-person-view drones destroying a target. Lethal drones and reconnaissance drones alike are reshaping the battlefield at an unprecedented pace. The U.S. military has yet to reckon with this. The current family of low-cost, highly effective drones used by the Ukrainians are all manufactured in China. No U.S. equivalent exists in the marketplace, as the efforts of several American companies have stalled. Read: ‘We only need some metal things’ Achilles presented us with an elaborate series of slides that broke down by cost each drone in his arsenal. While lethal U.S. drones such as the Switchblade cost approximately $60,000 to $80,000 a unit, the drones employed by the Ukrainians are a bargain, most costing in the low four figures. That is cheaper than a single artillery shell. The briefing given by Achilles wasn’t simply a summary of capabilities; it was a sales pitch. If an ideological argument for supporting Ukraine wasn’t sufficient, Achilles was willing to make an argument around the numbers and America’s potential return on investment. If the United States wants to keep Vladimir Putin in check and halt the advance of China and Iran, he suggested, Ukraine offers a bargain. His presentation ended with a slide that broke down how, for about $100 million, a drone unit like his could sustain itself in the field for an entire year, conducting approximately 5,000 lethal strikes. The rate of return: one dead Russian for every $20,000 spent. Achilles made his appeal with an urgency that American policy makers don’t seem to share. The speed of innovation on the battlefield has made some long-awaited Western weapons systems all but obsolete by the time they were delivered. Two weeks before our trip, yet another M1A1 Abrams main battle tank was destroyed in a top-down attack by a kamikaze drone. Only 20 of the 31 Abrams tanks delivered by the U.S. in February remain. Ukrainian soldiers at the front told us that any innovation they develop is countered by a Russian response within weeks. Both armies are innovating at a pace that is leaving the sclerotic U.S. and NATO defense industries behind. An example of this is HIMARS, the long-range rocket artillery that the U.S. has provided at a maddeningly slow pace. A year ago, HIMARS was the most in-demand system on the battlefield. Now it has a success rate of less than 10 percent because of Russian innovation in electronic warfare. Each rocket fired by HIMARS costs roughly $100,000. Because of the rapid decrease in HIMARS’s effectiveness, the Ukrainians have developed a drone that has a similar impact of the early HIMARS and costs about $1,000. The Ukrainians, however, are rightfully worried that, within a few weeks, the Russians will develop countermeasures that bring the effectiveness of this kind of drone down to that of the current HIMARS. It is, literally, an arms race. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent a great deal of time pleading with his allies for weapons and permission to use them to their full capabilities. But his administration is now pleading simply for the delivery of weapons that have already been pledged. Currently, these delays are the result of U.S. Department of Defense protocols that affect the drawdown rates of U.S. stockpiles. Each of the services is required to keep certain quantities of weapons and ammunition in reserve in case of war, and they are not allowed to dip below these levels. Such concerns are not without precedent. In the Second World War, during the German invasion of France in 1940, Winston Churchill had to deny French requests for Royal Air Force support. Churchill knew that every British plane would be required for the upcoming Battle of Britain. However, the United States is nowhere near such a crisis. If anything, and ironically, we keep our weapons in reserve for a crisis exactly like the one playing out in Ukraine. We must make those weapons available to those who would use them in our shared defense. The war in Ukraine is at risk of being lost—not because the Russians are winning but because Ukraine’s allies have not allowed them to win. If we encourage the Ukrainians to fight while failing to give them the tools they need for victory, history will surely conclude that the Russians weren’t the only ones who committed crimes against Ukraine.
dodgers 发表于 2024-10-06 11:49 是美国放弃了俄国。 当初叶利钦时候很亲美，shock therapy，后来就不关心了。结果落在普京手上。普及早期也亲美。 something happened。不知道为啥把俄国变成了反方。 应该有人写本书，How did the US lose Russia?
Jeff Sach是叶利钦期间的经济顾问，他有很多演讲把当初发生的事情揭露出来。基本就是美国背弃了俄国。保证北约不东扩，保证协助俄国经济。都没做到。他到现在对美国的deep state非常的不满。
dodgers 发表于 2024-10-06 11:49 是美国放弃了俄国。 当初叶利钦时候很亲美，shock therapy，后来就不关心了。结果落在普京手上。普及早期也亲美。 something happened。不知道为啥把俄国变成了反方。 应该有人写本书，How did the US lose Russia?
大西洋月刊：美国正在抛弃乌克兰 # 乌克兰战争, 美国 October 6, 2024
美国两位退伍军人，卡尔·马尔兰特斯和艾略特·阿克曼最近随美国两党议员团访问乌克兰后发表文章指出，根据他们的军事经验，美国在乌克兰的战略正缓慢地让这个国家及其人民走向灭亡。
在最近的乌克兰之行中，我们经过基辅遭到俄罗斯袭击的儿童医院废墟；参观了哈尔科夫一栋被俄罗斯导弹摧毁的公寓楼；还访问了前线，见到了讲述俄罗斯人海战术残酷性的士兵。
然而，我们所看到的最令人不安的事情，是美国在乌克兰的战略，这一战略让乌克兰人民获得的军事援助刚好足够维持战争，却不够让他们赢。
这一战略正慢慢让乌克兰及人民走向灭亡。
我们的访问由“有尊严”组织（With Honor）安排，这是一家支持国会退伍军人的两党政治行动委员会，我们与共和党和民主党的立法者一起访问了乌克兰。
我们都是海军陆战队退伍军人，合计拥有60年的作战经验，包括越南、伊拉克和阿富汗。
战争的恐怖对我们来说并不陌生。然而，在结束行程时，我们都感到深深的不安。
在哈尔科夫，我们与一群乌克兰作战退伍军人见面。
在战争爆发前，24岁的女兵维多利亚·洪查鲁克生活在美国，她曾获得哈佛大学研究生项目的录取，同时在纽约市从事投资银行工作。当2022年2月战争爆发时，她放弃了那种生活，回到家乡捍卫祖国。
她的医护队伍完全由志愿者组成，没有工资。她和她一起服役的朋友中大约有一半已经伤亡。当她列举对未来的担忧时，包括了对家人和朋友安全的担忧，以及在为国家生存而战时如何偿还美国的学生贷款。
当提到乌克兰的未来将由像她这样的年轻人领导和重建时，她停顿了一下，礼貌地提醒我们，只有在活下来的情况下，他们才能重建国家。
之后，我们驱车前往离前线几英里远的乡村，我们与第92突击旅的无人机部队会合。部队将战术车辆和各种无人机停放在伪装网下，以避免空中侦察。
部队指挥官阿基里斯（Achilles）向我们展示了他们的能力，这包括他们的一种第一人称视角无人机摧毁目标的实弹演示。致命无人机和侦察无人机正在以前所未有的速度重塑战场。美国军方尚未对此进行评估。
乌克兰人使用的低成本、高效无人机均由中国制造，市场上并没有美国等价产品，几家美国公司的努力都已停滞不前。
阿基里斯向我们演示了复杂的幻灯片，逐一分析了他武器库中每种无人机的成本。
美国的致命无人机，如Switchblade，每台大约需花费60,000到80,000美元，而乌克兰使用的无人机则便宜得多，大多数成本仅在四位数的低端。这甚至比一枚炮弹还要便宜。
阿基里斯的简报不仅仅是对能力的总结，更像是一场推销。如果支持乌克兰的意识形态论点还不够有说服力，阿基里斯愿意从数字和美国的潜在投资回报的角度来进行论证。
他建议，如果美国希望遏制普京，并阻止中国和伊朗的扩张，乌克兰的确是一个划算的选择。他的演示以一张幻灯片结束，说明大约1亿美元的投资，可以让像他这样的无人机部队在前线维持一整年，进行大约5,000次致命打击。回报率是，每花费20,000美元就能击毙一名俄罗斯士兵。
阿基里斯的呼吁，带着一种美国政策制定者似乎并不共享的紧迫感。战场上的创新速度，使得一些期待已久的西方武器系统在交付时几乎变得过时。在我们旅行前两周，另一辆M1A1艾布拉姆斯主战坦克在一次自杀无人机的俯冲攻击中被摧毁。美国在二月份交付的31辆艾布拉姆斯坦克中，仅剩20辆。
在前线的乌克兰士兵告诉我们，他们所开发的任何创新都将在几周内遭到俄罗斯的反制。两国军队的创新速度，正使得美国和北约的防务工业逐渐落后。
这方面的一个例子是海马斯，这是美国以令人沮丧的缓慢速度提供的远程火箭炮。就在一年前，海马斯是战场上最受欢迎的系统。如今，由于俄罗斯在电子战方面的创新，成功率不到10%。
海马斯发射的每枚火箭大约需花费100,000美元。由于有效性的迅速下降，乌克兰人开发出了一种无人机，影响与早期的海马斯相似，成本约为1,000美元。
然而，乌克兰人正当担心的是，在几周内，俄罗斯会开发出对策，使这种无人机的有效性下降到目前海马斯的水平。这实际上是一个军备竞赛。
乌克兰总统泽连斯基花了大量时间，向盟友请求武器及其全面使用的许可。但他的政府现在只是请求交付已承诺的武器。目前，这些延误是由于美国国防部的相关程序，影响到美国库存的调配率。每个军种都必须保留一定数量的武器和弹药，以备战争之需，且不能低于这些水平。
这种担忧并非没有先例。在第二次世界大战中，在1940年德国入侵法国期间，丘吉尔不得不拒绝法国请求提供皇家空军支持。丘吉尔知道，所有英国飞机都将用于即将到来的不列颠之战。
然而，美国并没有面临如此危机。讽刺的是，我们保留武器的目的是为了应对像在乌克兰发生的这种危机。我们必须将这些武器提供给那些在我们共同防御中会使用它们的人。
乌克兰的战争面临失利的风险——并不是因为俄罗斯在胜利，而是因为乌克兰的盟友没有让他们赢。
如果我们鼓励乌克兰人继续战斗，却未能给予他们胜利所需的工具，历史肯定会得出结论，俄罗斯人并不是唯一对乌克兰犯下罪行的人。
我听小岛大浪吹说过乌放弃核武这事，乌克兰那时虽然有核武器，但没法使用，因为启动核武器的指令在俄罗斯那。类似于你有个很好的iPhone，但忘了密码，如之奈何？当块砖头存？那还不如trade in换点钱算了。
乌克兰主动放弃核武器是为了和平。如果乌克兰不放弃，你猜俄罗斯当时会怎么做？你觉得如果墨西哥想要发展核武器，美国会怎么反应？
也不一定。
当时全部前苏联的都以为可以靠着美国的援助过上美国的好日子，别说二毛了，大毛都不想着发展，就等着一锅端当附庸，一步进入资本主义全民小资了。
这个泽连斯基霍霍自己国人
当初叶利钦时候很亲美，shock therapy，后来就不关心了。结果落在普京手上。普及早期也亲美。
something happened。不知道为啥把俄国变成了反方。
应该有人写本书，How did the US lose Russia?
东欧国家，是的包括俄罗斯，白人至上种族歧视更甚“左臂当道”的西欧。这就是为什么gop们从不反对乌克兰难民为什么不谴责俄罗斯。而大sb华人川粉还在忧心忡忡厕所变性以及Great Replacement，丝毫看不清自己在maga们眼中就是replace他们poison blood的可憎可恶的病毒。
这战也许还会打很久，毕竟原来有4200万人口的乌克兰历经三年抗战还有2800万人口，全民皆兵也是不可小觑的力量。 这战也许很快就会结束，因为乌克兰的军饷都是北约发的。一旦军援断了，乌军就无以为继了。
一声叹息！
给你们钱是为了消耗大毛的， 优先级不是你们能赢， 而是怎么做消耗最大
当时俄国人想当然认为美国会实行第二个马歇尔计划，俄国复苏的前景是光明。实际美国少数人也讨论过第二马歇尔计划。但当时美国经济不允许。最后美国对俄援助，远远低于欧洲对俄援助。而且仅限于人道援助。这也和叶利钦有关。他当时把很大的精力用于国内斗争，只和美国要求人道援助，没有谈经济援助与合作。
当时俄罗斯和美国欧洲都有回收意见 我记得当时俄罗斯是一比一回收，多少核弹值多少钱 俄罗斯通过钱和资源等 多少年内偿还给乌克兰，核弹不销毁 美国这边好像是三分之一还是六分之一 给钱，核弹立刻销毁 乌克兰选择了美国 因为给的是现金，这样才好贪污…. 可见多腐败
俄罗斯不被认同为同一人种，怎么可能马歇尔计划一样的支持。苏联解体后就结束了冷战，就完成了任务，当然就不管了。
可惜的是乌克兰平民百姓最后要承受这个代价因为不管结果如何他们是最大的输家。权贵阶层早就成了亿万富翁了到时候移民了而乌克兰的资产不知道已经卖到多少年后了。
nothing happened, 或者是说 nothing has changed 美国一直把苏联/俄罗斯当成敌人
是当初俄罗斯自己被忽悠了，想热脸贴冷屁股，一心想投降，奈何美国就是不要。。呵呵。。
整个90年代都是美国经济最强劲的时候。。
俄罗斯国债违约/金融危机的1998年，更是美国互联网泡沫顶点，经济高速发展，连财政赤字都快变成财政盈余了，钱多的花不，哪来的所谓美国经济不允许。。
就是故意见死不救，希望俄罗斯继续崩溃罢了。。
当年中国内战， 美国也是这样 甚至放弃援助… 抗战时飞虎队， 好像只是自愿参加的， 也不是美国政府派的？
飞虎队，就是为了舆论宣传而纯粹吹出来的东西
中国最危险的37-41年，根本没有飞虎队，只有苏联航空志愿队。。。 41年以后的飞虎队，也属于雇佣军性质，拿着美国空军2倍的薪水，过来帮助中国作战，规模也很小，只有当初苏联航空志愿队的几分之一。。
之后是政治需要，才开始各种吹。。。 竟然一度成了中美友谊的象征，真是搞笑。。
The Abandonment of Ukraine The American strategy in Ukraine is slowly bleeding the nation, and its people, to death. By Karl Marlantes and Elliot Ackerman
September 30, 2024
Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.
On a recent trip to Ukraine, we walked through the rubble of a children’s hospital in Kyiv targeted by the Russians, toured an apartment building in Kharkiv where floor after floor had been destroyed by Russian missiles, and visited the front lines to meet with soldiers who spoke of the brutality of Russian human-wave tactics. But the most unsettling thing we saw was the American strategy in Ukraine, one that gives the Ukrainian people just enough military aid not to lose their war but not enough to win it. This strategy is slowly bleeding Ukraine, and its people, to death.
Our visit was facilitated by With Honor, a bipartisan political-action committee that supports veterans in Congress, and we toured Ukraine alongside Republican and Democratic lawmakers. We are both Marine Corps veterans. We have a combined 60-year breadth of combat experience between us, including Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The horrors of war are not unfamiliar to us. Yet both of us felt deeply disturbed as we finished our trip.
In Kharkiv, we met with a group of Ukrainian combat veterans. Before the war, Victoria Honcharuk, a 24-year-old medic, lived in the United States, where she’d been accepted to a graduate program at Harvard while working in New York City in investment banking. When war broke out in February 2022, she left that life behind and returned home to defend her country. Her unit of medics, composed entirely of volunteers, draws no pay. Approximately half of the friends she began service with have been killed or wounded. When she enumerated her concerns for the future, they included the safety of her family and her friends but also how she would make payments on her U.S. student loans while fighting a war for her country’s survival. When a member of our group observed that Ukraine’s future would involve young people, like her, leading and rebuilding her country, she paused and politely reminded us that they could rebuild it only if they survived.
After, we drove into the nearby countryside to a field a few miles back from the front lines, where we met up with the drone unit from the 92nd Assault Brigade. It had parked tactical vehicles and an assortment of drones beneath camouflage nets to avoid aerial observation. The unit’s commander, nicknamed Achilles, walked us through a presentation of the soldiers’ capabilities. This included a live-fire demonstration of one of their first-person-view drones destroying a target. Lethal drones and reconnaissance drones alike are reshaping the battlefield at an unprecedented pace. The U.S. military has yet to reckon with this. The current family of low-cost, highly effective drones used by the Ukrainians are all manufactured in China. No U.S. equivalent exists in the marketplace, as the efforts of several American companies have stalled.
Read: ‘We only need some metal things’
Achilles presented us with an elaborate series of slides that broke down by cost each drone in his arsenal. While lethal U.S. drones such as the Switchblade cost approximately $60,000 to $80,000 a unit, the drones employed by the Ukrainians are a bargain, most costing in the low four figures. That is cheaper than a single artillery shell. The briefing given by Achilles wasn’t simply a summary of capabilities; it was a sales pitch. If an ideological argument for supporting Ukraine wasn’t sufficient, Achilles was willing to make an argument around the numbers and America’s potential return on investment. If the United States wants to keep Vladimir Putin in check and halt the advance of China and Iran, he suggested, Ukraine offers a bargain. His presentation ended with a slide that broke down how, for about $100 million, a drone unit like his could sustain itself in the field for an entire year, conducting approximately 5,000 lethal strikes. The rate of return: one dead Russian for every $20,000 spent.
Achilles made his appeal with an urgency that American policy makers don’t seem to share. The speed of innovation on the battlefield has made some long-awaited Western weapons systems all but obsolete by the time they were delivered. Two weeks before our trip, yet another M1A1 Abrams main battle tank was destroyed in a top-down attack by a kamikaze drone. Only 20 of the 31 Abrams tanks delivered by the U.S. in February remain. Ukrainian soldiers at the front told us that any innovation they develop is countered by a Russian response within weeks. Both armies are innovating at a pace that is leaving the sclerotic U.S. and NATO defense industries behind.
An example of this is HIMARS, the long-range rocket artillery that the U.S. has provided at a maddeningly slow pace. A year ago, HIMARS was the most in-demand system on the battlefield. Now it has a success rate of less than 10 percent because of Russian innovation in electronic warfare. Each rocket fired by HIMARS costs roughly $100,000. Because of the rapid decrease in HIMARS’s effectiveness, the Ukrainians have developed a drone that has a similar impact of the early HIMARS and costs about $1,000. The Ukrainians, however, are rightfully worried that, within a few weeks, the Russians will develop countermeasures that bring the effectiveness of this kind of drone down to that of the current HIMARS. It is, literally, an arms race.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent a great deal of time pleading with his allies for weapons and permission to use them to their full capabilities. But his administration is now pleading simply for the delivery of weapons that have already been pledged. Currently, these delays are the result of U.S. Department of Defense protocols that affect the drawdown rates of U.S. stockpiles. Each of the services is required to keep certain quantities of weapons and ammunition in reserve in case of war, and they are not allowed to dip below these levels. Such concerns are not without precedent. In the Second World War, during the German invasion of France in 1940, Winston Churchill had to deny French requests for Royal Air Force support. Churchill knew that every British plane would be required for the upcoming Battle of Britain. However, the United States is nowhere near such a crisis. If anything, and ironically, we keep our weapons in reserve for a crisis exactly like the one playing out in Ukraine. We must make those weapons available to those who would use them in our shared defense.
The war in Ukraine is at risk of being lost—not because the Russians are winning but because Ukraine’s allies have not allowed them to win. If we encourage the Ukrainians to fight while failing to give them the tools they need for victory, history will surely conclude that the Russians weren’t the only ones who committed crimes against Ukraine.
“他建议，如果美国希望遏制普京，并阻止中国和伊朗的扩张，乌克兰的确是一个划算的选择。他的演示以一张幻灯片结束，说明大约1亿美元的投资，可以让像他这样的无人机部队在前线维持一整年，进行大约5,000次致命打击。回报率是，每花费20,000美元就能击毙一名俄罗斯士兵。”
结论一，中国并没有单方面支持鹅毛；结论二，鸟克兰确实是把中国当假想敌或至少满满的恶意了，而中国其实客观上为他们提供了支持
中国应该有所改变了
中国应该没有直接卖乌克兰无人机，乌克兰从欧洲市场比如波兰弄来到中国无人机。乌克兰如何对中国，其实早就知道吧。
哈哈。离婚不带娃，又不给抚养费。为了避免牺牲。务必在没有抚养费的情况下放弃娃。
手动点赞
还对中国唧唧歪歪的，挨打活该。
美国根本不可能支持一个强大的俄国。
不可能 美国绝对不可能抛弃乌克兰，这样会伤了台巴的心
因为有系统的人 能在浩瀚的文字中找到他们要的东西不断推给你。 哪怕99%不是这么回事，但1%的内容却能洗屏幕一百次呈现给你。这就是舆论战的一部分。
Jeff Sach是叶利钦期间的经济顾问，他有很多演讲把当初发生的事情揭露出来。基本就是美国背弃了俄国。保证北约不东扩，保证协助俄国经济。都没做到。他到现在对美国的deep state非常的不满。
Jeff 不满不是因为美国背弃俄国 当时俄国是最大的威胁 背弃俄国 连中削弱俄国 是当时最光明的道路 他不满是因为二十三十年后中国成为了最大的威胁 如果俄国现在是美国的盟友 中国根本不可能成为威胁
所谓 上兵伐谋，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城 Jeff一个伐谋的被攻城的气死
👍 美吹们最爱吹的其中一段 还有就是美国【帮助】 中国加入WTO😂 把各种条款刁难中国以获得更多利益的美国，吹的那么清新脱俗
美国帮助中国加入WTO真是洗地洗的没谱了。用粤语说，神系你，鬼又系你。双标狗。
美国本来想靠WTO薅中国人力资源的羊毛，没想到被反噬了。跟美国做贸易的国家，那么多年没被薅羊毛反而虎口拔牙让美国输光底裤的，就只有中国。日本差点成功了，但是被它的美狗属性坏了事。
打三年就没了1/3人口，再打个几年就灭国了好吧
俄罗斯那种体量和战略纵深，最不怕的就是打持久战。俄罗斯经济已经恢复，不但没有瘫痪还开始增长，其实胜负已定。美国又不可能肉身下场，只能指望乌克兰再负隅顽抗一阵子。那多少亿的经济和军事援助都只能打水漂。
俄罗斯，我也加入北约吧？美国，你还是做威胁比较好，这样欧洲小弟們才会听话。
腾笼换鸟战略，给天龙人挪地方。
我觉得你是把Jeff Sachs和John Mearsheimer搞混了