2025年1月16日，星期四，第1159期

美现任驻日大使称“最大威胁不是中国”，折射出拜登政府与美军工复合体（美军）之间的怎样微妙关系？

【媒体报道】

1月15日，美国驻日大使伊曼纽尔在接受采访时表示，美国防务公司优先考虑的是股票回购，而不是向美军及其盟友提供武器，此举严重损害美国国家安全利益。伊曼纽尔称，这些公司更注重提高其股票价值，而不是投资生产能力，这导致了武器运输的延迟，可能会损害美国的安全并削弱美国的联盟。

1月15日，当地时间1月14日，伊拉克总理穆罕默德·希亚·苏达尼访问英国，并签署了一系列协议，涉及总价值123亿英镑的大型项目和“战略性”防务伙伴关系。

【讨论纪要】

●俄或在向西方投降、妥协的问题上再次出现剧烈摇摆的重要前提条件

在上一次的讨论中，我们提及了发生在1940年8月下旬到11月底12月初的“百团大战”的重大政治意义——强烈冲击并打断了中华民国（1912年到1949年）蒋介石政府在抗日战争中，因遭受一系列重大军事失败，在向侵华日军投降、妥协的问题上出现的剧烈摇摆倾向。

类似的事件，放在今天的国际博弈中，国际社会对俄罗斯，在向西方投降、妥协的问题上出现剧烈摇摆倾向之际，至少也将其强烈冲击并打断三次。一次在2015年，一次在2018年，还有一次在2024年。再次强调，如果那架由俄罗斯特种航空中队驾驶的“伊尔-96”于12月26日凌晨0时10分抵达纽约一事与本次，也就是2024年这次俄罗斯，在向西方投降、妥协的问题上出现剧烈摇摆有直接关系被后续国际局势发展所证明，那么中国在12月26日稍晚一些连续主动曝光两款新型战机一事就极具针对性。

在我们看来，美国（特朗普）被中国从成功试射“DF-31AG”到珠海航展（连续展示两款新型战机是本次“爆兵”的后续发展）吓破了胆，不得不基于“以进为退”大玩战略收缩且一旦将相关计划，如，吞并加拿大、格陵兰岛和巴拿马运河落到实处，国际秩序“礼崩乐坏”并走向世界版“战国”时期之国际局势的可能走向是本次俄罗斯或在向西方投降、妥协的问题上再次出现剧烈摇摆的重要前提条件之一。

值得一提的是，今天的俄罗斯历任总统，从叶利钦和普京，与当年的楚怀王颇有些相似。

当年，楚怀王轻信张仪许六百里商於之地归还给楚国之言，断绝齐楚同盟，同时依强欺弱，攻伐韩、魏，导致韩、魏投秦。后张仪声称只许给楚国六里地，秦楚关系破裂。由于秦国（救韩伐楚）已经表态，加之愤于被张仪欺骗，楚怀王决定发兵攻打秦国。丹阳一战，遭秦反击，斩首八万，反被秦国夺楚之汉中之地八百里。汉中失守，楚怀王大怒，发倾国之兵进攻秦国，于蓝田与秦鏖战。因后方被韩、魏两国偷袭，遭两面夹击，楚军大败。丹阳、蓝田两次惨败使得楚国元气大伤，从此由盛转衰。

某种意义上说，俄罗斯今天也算沦落到“四面楚歌”的地步，输欧能源管道，除了“土耳其流”（刚刚遭遇乌克兰军事打击）外几乎全被切断，输华能源管线，比如“西伯利亚力量2号”又因俄罗斯始终不肯实质性放弃“阿富汗政策小九九”而一直停留在设计图阶段。只剩下一个土耳其流。再加上特朗普即将上台，俄罗斯对其抱有不切实际的政治幻想，以及美国大玩战略收缩，这使得俄罗斯至少从现阶段观察，再度倾向于选择对西方“跪地求饶”，甘做楚国。

需要补充的是，‌楚怀王在公元前299年被秦昭襄王骗到武关会盟，随后被秦国扣押，胁迫其割让土地。在秦国被囚禁三年后，楚怀王忧郁成疾，最终命丧于咸阳。‌楚怀王在位期间，楚国的政治和军事形势已经经历了多次起伏。早期，他尚能任用屈原等人才进行改革，取得击败魏国、灭亡越国的功绩。然而，楚怀王晚年，由于其信任佞臣，排斥忠臣，最终导致国事日非。尽管楚怀王在秦国胁迫下拒绝割地，但最终客死秦国。楚怀王的死对楚国产生深远影响，加速了楚国的衰落和灭亡。公元前223年，王翦、蒙武率秦军向楚国大举进攻，一举攻破楚都寿春（今安徽寿县西南），俘楚王负刍，楚亡。

●当中国的拳头比美国大，比美国硬的时候，他们的“心理防线”便随之崩塌

如果更准确地描述，在“战国初期”，美国更像秦国。但到了“战国中期”，美国则更像齐国，这恐怕是今天的美国欲行合纵连横以抗中的主要原因之一。今天的美国，如同当年“战国中期”自知弱于秦国的齐国一样，被迫通过合纵连横试图维持局面，这本身就是一种衰落、心虚的表现。

其中，中国从成功试射“DF-31AG”到珠海航展（连续展示两款新型战机是本次“爆兵”的后续发展）是美国自知已弱于中国的主要原因之一。西方国家从来只信奉拳头，当中国的拳头比美国大，比美国硬的时候，他们的“心理防线”便随之崩塌了。

美国不得不亲自摧毁自己在二战后建立的世界秩序，以求战略收缩，苟延残喘。并基于合纵连横之手段，威、逼、利、诱，欧、俄、日、印等一批国家。这个局面非常类似中国古代战国中后期，秦齐两强并立并分别开展合纵联合的格局。

●美国想要搞战略收缩是要付出代价的，而且要付出惨重代价

我们注意到，1月14日，伊拉克总理穆罕默德·希亚·苏达尼访问英国，签署一系列协议，涉及总价值123亿英镑的大型项目和“战略性”防务伙伴关系的新闻报道。

美国想要搞战略收缩是要付出代价的，而且要付出惨重代价，尽管目前特朗普只是在口头上在鼓吹和炒作。

英国，作为美国的“核心盟友”之一，一边和美国最大的敌人——中国进行接触，另一边和伊拉克密切互动。显然，今天的英国同样有心基于“合纵国”的身份意图提前享受好处和便利，比如，和“老欧洲”（德、法、意、西等）一样，打起了中东能源通道的主意。由于伊拉克紧邻叙利亚，所以这条能源管线无论是否通过叙利亚，都要经过土耳其，这无疑加重了土耳其手中的筹码，而土耳其目前在叙利亚局势后续发展中，和美、以关系微妙。

此外，美国的“核心盟友”之二，日本，则不惜降低级别（日本防卫省，相当于国防部直接对接）也要和中国人民解放军东部战区谈起了安全问题，如此做法，置“美日军事同盟”于何地？置“西太安全框架”于何地？日本不仅是美国“西太安全框架”的两大锚点之一（韩国目前正经历尹锡悦弹劾案），更是美国离岸制衡欧、中策略的支点。

值得一提的是，在美国逐步表现出欲开展合纵连横联俄抗华之迹象后，乌克兰也动了同样身为“合纵国”，或可提前享受某些便利和好处进而“心向欧洲”的。显然，美国尚未开展合纵连横，美国的盟友们就已经开始漫散了。

此外，美国玩战略收缩的代价我们也可以从历史中加以寻找。

想当年，美国深陷越战难以自拔，1972年，尼克松访华的主要战略目的之一就是为了找到一条可以相对安全抽身越南战争的方法。说白了就是越战失利，面对苏联和华约的咄咄逼人，美国如何才能相对安全地进行战略收缩。基于历史的过往不难看出，如果当时的中国不允许美国“重新做人”，恐怕美国在越战失利之后很难善终。这一历史事件告诉我们，搞霸权，如美帝这般，是不能轻言战略收缩的，稍有不慎，后患无穷。这也是我们初步评估，特朗普上台后，美国或一边和中国缓和关系，另一边基于合纵连横层面对俄罗斯展开新一轮的威逼利诱。今天的美国类似越战时期的中国，今天的中国类似越战时期的苏联。但遗憾的是，俄罗斯不是中国，其领导人更没有毛泽东主席的战略格局。当年的苏联有华约，美国有北约，而中国什么都没有，但就是这样也促成“中、美、苏大三角”，并成功跳出了“雅尔塔体系”的束缚。

●沙特建国、发展的历史无不折射出一句话——识时务者为俊杰

说起合纵连横，不得不提一下沙特这个国家。沙特建国和发展历史充满了合纵连横的色彩。

沙特阿拉伯国家石油公司成立于1933年，沙特政府与雪佛龙公司的前身加利福尼亚州标准石油公司签订了一项特许协议，开始在王国大部分地区进行石油勘探，同年，成立了加利福尼亚阿拉伯标准石油公司。1938年，在达兰发现了第一个商业性油田一达曼油田。1936年，雪佛龙将其在阿拉伯的半数股权出让给德士古石油公司。1940年，发现了布盖格油田，为沙特第四大油田。1944年，加利福尼亚阿拉伯标准石油公司更名为阿拉伯美国石油公司，简称阿美石油公司。总部设在美国旧金山。1948年，埃克森公司和美孚公司加入该公司，变为四家公司合资的公司，其中雪佛龙和德士古的股份分别由50%降至30%，埃克森公司持股30%，美孚公司持股10%。

不难看出，沙特当年之所以能够相对顺利地立国并逐步发展，与美国的崛起密切相关。沙特成就美国，美国也成就了沙特。当时的美国很像现在的中国，而当时的世界霸主还是日不落帝国——英国。

今天，沙特选择了中国而没有选择美国。对中国而言，自然对“识时务者为俊杰”的沙特青睐有加。对美国来说，沙特如今已经成为其在处理中东问题上的一块心病，是拉拢不是，威逼也不是。美国想要拉住沙特就要付出代价对冲中国的影响力，恐怕以今天美国之实力很难做到。美国逼迫沙特又只能加速海湾阿拉伯国家进一步倒向中国。

某种意义上说，沙特代表了中东地区的相当一部分国家，加上中国的帮衬，本质上没有沙特求人的道理，只有人求沙特的道理。而中国通过沙特间接影响中东局势的发展，包括伊拉克和英国即将展开的合作，也在此中。在中东问题上，中国“无私利”，但却“朋友遍天下”；虽然到处看不到中国，但却处处都有中国的影子。如同在中东问题上，任何想要玩合纵连横的势力都绕不开沙特一样。在世界问题上，任何想要玩合纵连横的势力也绕不开中国。

显然，高调访问英国的伊拉克，是打算比照沙特建国与发展的历史，以求抓住这一难得的历史机遇，摆脱西方的殖民控制。

●对美国军工复合体而言，基于特朗普之“一切为了股市”之豪言壮志，似乎利益唾手可得

最后，让我们将讨论的焦点转向西太方向。

我们注意到，拜登政府任命的驻日大使伊曼纽尔的相关言论。值得一提的是，这并非伊曼纽尔第一次批评美国军工企业，近年来美国军工企业将大量资金用于股票回购，而非用于扩大生产或研发新武器的现象，早已引发美国国内外舆论的广泛关注。2023年雷神公司和洛克希德·马丁公司用于股票回购的资金高达189亿美元，而用于实际业务支出的资金仅为41亿美元，这导致了美国军工企业在生产、研发方面的明显滞后。而美国下一代空中优势计划至今仍停留在概念阶段，与此同时中国已经试飞了两款“六代机”，并在其他高端武器研发领域快速推进。

我们对伊曼纽尔关于美国军工复合体“不务正业”的说法深以为然。但也提请伊曼纽尔大使不要忘记，美国走到今天的地步，用中国流行的一句话形容就是——哪国怎，定体问！也就是说，美国今天的模样与美国的制度积弊难返密切相关。美国从前总统尼克松访华开始，正式从产业资本主义向金融资本主义发展。以至于现在的美国军工复合体已经严重金融化。以波音防务为例，他们无需再去生产军工产品，只要积极参与股市和金融衍生品交易就更快赚钱，更何况如此还能“完美规避”中国的制裁，何乐不为？

需要补充的是，大家在观察这一新闻报道的时候，不妨注意美现任驻日大使称“最大威胁不是中国”背后所折射出拜登政府与美军工复合体（美军）之间的怎样微妙关系。尤其在拜登政府即将下台的前几天，这种关系似乎比之以往更加微妙。

也就是说，如果拜登的想法和驻韩美军一样，拜登就可以让尹锡悦干什么就干什么。真正掌控韩国的是驻韩美军或美军。美军和美国军工复合体关系密切，在拜登的驻日大使大骂美国军工复合体的背后凸显美军和拜登政府之间有矛盾，而且已经公开化。这自然有利于特朗普，不利于拜登。尹锡悦就算官复原职，其麻烦也会因刑事案件而无法彻底了结。尹锡悦毫无自由可言，只有按“电话”（驻韩美军）行事，至于在“关键时刻”，驻韩美军或者说美军到底听谁的，和尹锡悦没关系。从伊曼纽尔公开大骂美国军工复合体“不务正业”的情况来看，似乎与美国军工复合体关系甚密的美军，包括驻韩美军在内，已经不太愿意听从拜登政府的差遣了。

在美国军工复合体看来，尽管特朗普已经许诺的好处，基于实体生产层面显得有些虚无缥缈，像在“画饼”；但是，基于特朗普“一切为了股市”之豪言壮志层面，似乎巨大的利益又唾手可得。既然如此，为什么还要跟随即将下台的拜登政府“刀口舔血”，甚至可能因此背负骂名、承担巨大政治风险呢？这对于早已严重金融化的美国军工复合体，亦或是美军而言，显然是“收益递减”！

【相关话题】

第7723期－若全球进入“战国”时期，欧洲面对美俄扩张是否还能成为世界一级相对独立存在？（2025-1-13）
第7726期－为什么说“俄、伊将签署全面战略伙伴关系条约”折射出两国或已提前开始享受“被合纵国”之“便利”的小心思？（2025-1-14）
第7730期－结合中国将7家美国实体列入不可靠实体清单等消息，小谈即便是经济版的“合纵连横”美国恐也是“还未开始就已落了下风”（2025-1-15）（2025-1-14）

声明：具体内容如有出入，请以“东方时事解读”音频为准。

Tuesday, January 16, 2025, Issue No. 1159

The current US ambassador to Japan claims that "the greatest threat is not China," reflecting what subtle relationship between the Biden administration and the US military-industrial complex (the US military)?

[Media Coverage]

On January 15, US Ambassador to Japan Emanuel stated in an interview that US defense companies prioritize stock buybacks over providing weapons to the US military and its allies, which seriously harms US national security interests. Emanuel said that these companies focus more on increasing their stock value than investing in production capacity, leading to delays in weapon deliveries that could harm US security and weaken US alliances.

On January 15 (local time January 14), Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani visited the UK and signed a series of agreements involving major projects and "strategic" defense partnerships worth a total of GBP 12.3 billion.

【Discussion Summary】

●Important Preconditions for Russia's Potential New Swing Towards Surrender or Compromise to the West

In our previous discussion, we mentioned the significant political significance of the "Hundred Regiments Offensive" that occurred from late August to early December 1940. It strongly impacted and interrupted the tendency of the Republic of China (1912-1949) Chiang Kai-shek government to surrender or compromise to the invading Japanese army due to a series of major military defeats during the Anti-Japanese War.

Similar events, in today's international game, when the international community observes Russia experiencing a violent swing towards surrender or compromise to the West, it has interrupted this tendency at least three times. Once in 2015, once in 2018, and again in 2024. We emphasize again that if the arrival of the "Il-96" piloted by a Russian special aviation squadron in New York at 0:10 am on December 26 is proven to be directly related to Russia's current swing towards surrender or compromise to the West in 2024 through subsequent developments in the international situation, then China's consecutive proactive disclosure of two new fighter jets shortly after December 26 is highly targeted.

In our view, the United States (under Trump) was frightened by China's successful test-firing of the "DF-31AG" and the subsequent developments at the Zhuhai Airshow (where two new fighter jets were showcased as part of this "military buildup"). As a result, the US had to adopt a strategy of "advancing by retreating" and playing strategic contraction. Once related plans, such as annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, are implemented, the possible trajectory of the international order collapsing and entering a global "Warring States" period is one of the important preconditions for Russia's potential new swing towards surrender or compromise to the West.

It is worth mentioning that Russia's successive presidents, from Yeltsin to Putin, bear some similarities to the King of Chu in ancient times.

Back then, the King of Chu naively believed Zhang Yi's promise to return the 600-li Shangyu region to the State of Chu, severing the Chu-Qi alliance. At the same time, relying on strength to bully the weak, he attacked the States of Han and Wei, causing them to ally with Qin. Later, Zhang Yi claimed to only grant the State of Chu six li of land, leading to a rupture in Qin-Chu relations. Due to Qin's (rescuing Han and attacking Chu) stated position, coupled with anger at being deceived by Zhang Yi, the King of Chu decided to send troops to attack Qin. In the Battle of Danyang, Chu was counterattacked by Qin, with 80,000 soldiers killed, and Qin seized 800 li of Chu's Hanzhong region. After losing Hanzhong, the King of Chu was furious and launched a full-scale attack on Qin, engaging in a fierce battle at Lantian. However, with the rear attacked by the States of Han and Wei, Chu's army was caught in a pincer attack and suffered a crushing defeat. The two devastating defeats at Danyang and Lantian greatly weakened the State of Chu, marking a turn from prosperity to decline.

In a sense, Russia today can also be said to have fallen into a situation of "being besieged on all sides." Almost all energy pipelines to Europe, except for the "Turkish Stream" (which recently suffered a military attack by Ukraine), have been cut off. The energy pipeline to China, such as "Siberia Power 2," remains on the drawing board due to Russia's persistent reluctance to substantially abandon its "Afghanistan policy machinations." Only the Turkish Stream remains. Furthermore, with Trump soon to take office, Russia harbors unrealistic political fantasies about him, and the US is playing strategic contraction, making Russia at least currently inclined to choose to "kneel and beg forgiveness" to the West, willingly playing the role of the State of Chu.

It should be added that the King of Chu was deceived by Qin's King Zhaoxiang into a peace alliance at Wuguan in 299 BC and was subsequently detained by Qin, forced to cede territory. After being imprisoned in Qin for three years, the King of Chu fell ill due to melancholy and ultimately died in Xianyang. During his reign, the political and military situation of the State of Chu experienced multiple ups and downs. In his early years, he was able to appoint talents like Qu Yuan to carry out reforms, achieving victories such as defeating the State of Wei and annihilating the State of Yue. However, in his later years, due to his trust in treacherous courtiers and exclusion of loyal subjects, the affairs of the State of Chu declined. Although the King of Chu refused to cede territory under coercion from Qin, he ultimately died in Qin. The death of the King of Chu had a profound impact on the State of Chu, accelerating its decline and eventual destruction. In 223 BC, Wang Jian and Meng Wu led the Qin army to launch a major offensive against the State of Chu, capturing the Chu capital Shouchun (now southwest of Shouxian County, Anhui Province) in one fell swoop, capturing the King of Chu Fu Chou, and the State of Chu was annihilated.

●When China's fist is bigger and harder than America's, their "psychological defense" will collapse accordingly.

To describe it more accurately, in the "early Warring States period," the United States was more like the State of Qin. But by the "mid-Warring States period," the United States resembles the State of Qi, which is probably one of the main reasons why the United States today seeks to form alliances and counter China through diplomacy. Like the State of Qi in the "mid-Warring States period," aware of its weakness compared to the State of Qin, the United States today is forced to try to maintain its position through alliances and diplomacy, which is itself a manifestation of decline and insecurity.

Among other things, China's successful test launch of the "DF-31AG" and the Zhuhai Air Show (where two new fighter jets were showcased as a follow-up to this "military muscle-flexing") are major reasons why the United States now recognizes its inferiority to China. Western countries have always believed in the power of might, and when China's fist is bigger and harder than America's, their "psychological defense" will collapse accordingly.

The United States has to destroy the world order it established after World War II to seek strategic retraction and prolong its existence. Through diplomacy, it uses coercion, intimidation, benefits, and inducements to deal with a group of countries including Europe, Russia, Japan, and India. This situation is very similar to the mid-to-late Warring States period in ancient China, where the two powerful states of Qin and Qi coexisted and each formed alliances.

●The United States will pay a heavy price for its strategic retraction.

We have noticed news reports on January 14th that Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani visited the United Kingdom to sign a series of agreements involving major projects worth a total of GBP 12.3 billion and a "strategic" defense partnership.

The United States will pay a heavy price for its strategic retraction, and although currently, Donald Trump is only advocating and hyping it up verbally.

As one of the "core allies" of the United States, the United Kingdom is engaging with China, the United States' greatest enemy, while also interacting closely with Iraq. Obviously, today's United Kingdom also intends to enjoy benefits and conveniences in advance based on its identity as a "coalition country." For example, like the "old Europe" (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc.), it is eyeing the energy corridor in the Middle East. Since Iraq is adjacent to Syria, this energy pipeline, whether it passes through Syria or not, must go through Turkey, which undoubtedly increases Turkey's bargaining power. Currently, Turkey has a delicate relationship with the United States and Israel in the subsequent developments of the Syrian situation.

Furthermore, Japan, another "core ally" of the United States, is willing to lower its level (with the Japanese Ministry of Defense, equivalent to the Defense Department, directly engaging) to discuss security issues with the Eastern Theater Command of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. What does this approach do to the "US-Japan Military Alliance"? What does it do to the "West Pacific Security Framework"? Japan is not only one of the two anchors of the United States' "West Pacific Security Framework" (South Korea is currently going through an impeachment case against Yoon Seok-youl), but also a fulcrum for the United States' offshore balancing strategy against Europe and China.

It is worth mentioning that after the United States gradually showed signs of forming alliances to counter China with Russia, Ukraine also had similar thoughts. As a "coalition country," it may enjoy certain conveniences and benefits in advance and thus "lean towards Europe." Obviously, before the United States even starts forming alliances, its allies are already starting to drift apart.

Additionally, we can look to history to find the cost of the United States' strategic retraction.

Back then, the United States was mired in the Vietnam War and could not extricate itself. In 1972, one of the main strategic purposes of Nixon's visit to China was to find a relatively safe way to withdraw from the Vietnam War. In other words, the United States was seeking a relatively safe strategic retraction after the defeat in Vietnam, facing the aggressive Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Based on historical precedents, it is not difficult to see that if China had not allowed the United States to "make a fresh start" at that time, it would have been difficult for the United States to end the Vietnam War well. This historical event tells us that a hegemon like the United States cannot easily talk about strategic retraction; otherwise, the consequences could be severe. This is also our preliminary assessment that after Trump came to power, the United States may seek to ease relations with China on one hand, while launching a new round of coercion and inducement against Russia through alliances on the other. Today's United States is similar to China during the Vietnam War, and today's China is similar to the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War. But unfortunately, Russia is not China, and its leaders do not have the strategic vision of Chairman Mao Zedong. Back then, the Soviet Union had the Warsaw Pact, the United States had NATO, and China had nothing, but even so, it facilitated the "China-US-Soviet triangle" and successfully broke free from the constraints of the "Yalta system."

●The history of Saudi Arabia's founding and development reflects the saying—those who understand the times are wise.

When it comes to strategic alliances and diplomatic maneuvers, Saudi Arabia is a country that must be mentioned. The history of Saudi Arabia's founding and development is replete with elements of strategic alliances and diplomatic maneuvers.

The Saudi Arabian Oil Company was established in 1933, when the Saudi government signed a concession agreement with the California Standard Oil Company, the predecessor of Chevron, to begin oil exploration in most parts of the kingdom. In the same year, the California-Arabian Standard Oil Company (Casoc) was established. In 1938, the first commercial oil field, the Dammam oil field, was discovered in Dhahran. In 1936, Chevron sold half of its stake in Arabia to the Texas Company (later known as Texaco). In 1940, the Ghawar oil field, the fourth-largest oil field in Saudi Arabia, was discovered. In 1944, Casoc changed its name to the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). Its headquarters were in San Francisco, USA. In 1948, Exxon and Mobil joined the company, making it a joint venture among four companies, with Chevron and Texaco's stakes reduced from 50% to 30% each, Exxon holding 30%, and Mobil 10%.

It is not difficult to see that Saudi Arabia's relatively smooth establishment and gradual development were closely related to the rise of the United States. Saudi Arabia made America, and America made Saudi Arabia. At that time, the United States was similar to today's China, while the world hegemon was still the British Empire, with the sun never setting on its dominions.

Today, Saudi Arabia has chosen China over the United States. Naturally, China favors Saudi Arabia, which "understands the times and is wise." For the United States, Saudi Arabia has become a headache in dealing with Middle Eastern issues, neither easy to woo nor coerce. If the US wants to keep Saudi Arabia on its side, it will have to pay a price to counter China's influence, which may be difficult for the US to achieve with its current strength. If the US pressures Saudi Arabia, it will only accelerate the further shift of Gulf Arab countries towards China.

In a sense, Saudi Arabia represents a considerable number of countries in the Middle East. With China's support, there is no reason for Saudi Arabia to plead with others; instead, others may have to plead with Saudi Arabia. Through Saudi Arabia, China indirectly influences the development of the situation in the Middle East, including the upcoming cooperation between Iraq and the UK. In the Middle East, China has "no selfish interests" but "friends all over the world"; although China is not visible everywhere, its influence is everywhere. Just as any force trying to play strategic alliances and diplomatic maneuvers in the Middle East cannot bypass Saudi Arabia, any force trying to play such games in the world cannot bypass China.

Obviously, Iraq, which has made a high-profile visit to the UK, intends to follow the history of Saudi Arabia's founding and development, seeking to seize this rare historical opportunity to break free from Western colonial control.

●For the US military-industrial complex, based on Trump's pledge of "everything for the stock market," it seems that profits are within easy reach.

Finally, let us turn our focus to the Western Pacific.

We have noticed the remarks made by Emanuel, the US ambassador to Japan appointed by the Biden administration. It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time Emanuel has criticized US military-industrial corporations. In recent years, the phenomenon of US military-industrial corporations allocating significant funds to stock buybacks instead of expanding production or developing new weapons has attracted widespread attention both domestically and internationally. In 2023, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin spent a total of 18.9billiononstockbuybacks,whileonly4.1 billion was spent on actual business expenses, leading to obvious lags in production and research and development among US military-industrial corporations. Meanwhile, the US's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is still in the conceptual stage, while China has already test-flown two "sixth-generation fighter jets" and is rapidly advancing in other high-end weapon research and development areas.

We strongly agree with Emanuel's statement about the "lack of focus" on core business among the US military-industrial complex. However, we also remind Ambassador Emanuel that the situation the US is in today is, as a popular saying in China goes, "which country, how could it be, ask about the system!" That is, the current state of the US is closely related to the deep-seated flaws in its system. Since former President Nixon's visit to China, the US has officially shifted from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism. As a result, the US military-industrial complex has become heavily financialized. Taking Boeing Defense as an example, they no longer need to produce military products; they can make money more quickly by actively participating in stock market and derivative transactions. What's more, this can also "perfectly circumvent" Chinese sanctions. Why not?

It should be added that when observing this news report, one should pay attention to the subtle relationship between the Biden administration and the US military-industrial complex (the US military) reflected in the current US ambassador to Japan's statement that "the greatest threat is not China." Especially in the few days before the Biden administration is about to leave office, this relationship seems to be more delicate than ever.

That is to say, if Biden thinks like the US military stationed in South Korea, he can make Yoon Seok-youl do whatever he wants. It is the US military stationed in South Korea or the US military that truly controls South Korea. The US military is closely related to the US military-industrial complex. The fact that Biden's ambassador to Japan criticized the US military-industrial complex highlights the contradiction between the US military and the Biden administration, which has become public. This is naturally beneficial to Trump but detrimental to Biden. Even if Yoon Seok-youl is reinstated, his troubles will not be completely resolved due to criminal cases. Yoon Seok-youl has no freedom; he can only act according to the "phone call" (from the US military stationed in South Korea). As for who the US military stationed in South Korea or the US military will listen to at "critical moments," it has nothing to do with Yoon Seok-youl. Judging from Emanuel's public criticism of the US military-industrial complex for its "lack of focus" on core business, it seems that the US military, including the US military stationed in South Korea, which has close ties with the US military-industrial complex, is no longer willing to follow the Biden administration's orders.

From the perspective of the US military-industrial complex, although the benefits promised by Trump seem somewhat illusory and like "pie in the sky" at the level of physical production, based on Trump's pledge of "everything for the stock market," it seems that enormous profits are within easy reach. So, why should they continue to follow the Biden administration, which is about to leave office, and "risk their necks," potentially earning a bad reputation and incurring significant political risks? For the heavily financialized US military-industrial complex, or the US military, this is clearly a "diminishing return"!

[Related Topics]

Issue 7723 - If the world enters a "Warring States" period, can Europe still remain a relatively independent world-class power in the face of US and Russian expansion? (January 13, 2025)
Issue 7726 - Why does the "signing of a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty between Russia and Iran" reflect the two countries' possible anticipation of enjoying the "convenience" of being "allied countries" in advance? (January 14, 2025)
Issue 7730 - Based on news such as China adding seven US entities to the Unreliable Entities List, a brief discussion on how the US may already be "at a disadvantage before it even starts" in even an economic version of "strategic alliances and diplomatic maneuvers." (January 15, 2025)

Disclaimer: In case of any discrepancies in the specific content, please refer to the 'Eastern Current Affairs Interpretation Audio' for the most accurate information.

原文作者公众号：

广州市贯日翻译服务有限公司为东方时评-衍射传媒/衍射咨询提供翻译支持

翻译请联系http://www.en-ch.com/chcontact.htm

手机微信13924166640

广州市越秀区环市东路世界贸易中心大厦南塔24楼 020-86266990