2025年2月17日，星期一，第1181期

为什么说美国务院修改“美台关系”，删除有关“不支持台湾独立”表述，是一个精心设计的陷阱？

【媒体报道】

2月16日，据英媒报道，在北京时间16日晚些时候发出的一封电子邮件中，美国务院发言人表示，“按照惯例，我们更新事实说明书”，向公众通报美国与台湾当局所谓的非官方关系。该发言人称，“美国仍坚持一个中国政策，致力于维护台海地区的和平与稳定，我们反对任何一方单方面改变现状。我们支持两岸对话，并期待两岸分歧能够以和平的、非胁迫的、两岸人民都能接受的方式得到解决。”

2月16日，美媒报道，美国副助理国务卿克里斯托弗·史密斯于2月12日（星期三）访问了白俄罗斯，并与白俄罗斯总统亚历山大·卢卡申科进行了会晤。该报强调，这是美国国务院代表5年来首次与白俄罗斯领导人会面。该媒体指出，此次会晤可能预示着美白关系升温。美国外交官史密斯对白俄罗斯的访问为美国和白俄罗斯关系和解带来了希望。此前有消息称，美国和白俄罗斯将达成一项缓解制裁的重大协议。美国副助理国务卿史密斯与白俄罗斯总统卢卡申科以及白俄罗斯克格勃负责人伊万·特尔讨论了这一问题。

【讨论纪要】

●特朗普口中的“俄乌停战计划”还未正式展开，“乌克兰陷阱”这位“老演员”便再次粉墨登场了

在“南亚破局”的问题上，也就是实质性瓦解中俄战略互信的问题上，美国政府 从2014年的奥巴马政府，到2017年的特朗普政府（第一任期），再到2021年的拜登政府，以及现在的特朗普政府（第二任期），从未放弃，只不过历届政府在具体执行方式方法上有所不同。

特朗普第二任期上任之初就不断瞄着实质性解构中俄战略互信做文章。比如，特朗普重提核裁军的老调子，称希望与中俄领导人讨论核裁军。值得一提的是，2018年10月，时任美国总统（特朗普）国家安全顾问博尔顿，在莫斯科会谈时抛出中国话题，试图提出美国对中国在经济和军事政治领域的相关意见时遭到俄方明确拒绝。俄方表示，涉及中国伙伴的任何问题应当只与北京讨论。

我们注意到美国国务院发言人回应删除“不支持台独”表述但仍狡辩称坚持一个中国政策的新闻报道。

特朗普要和普京谈乌克兰问题，甚至摆出一副可以忽略欧盟感受的姿态，但同时又在台湾问题上“带节奏”。显然，其中，有美国借台湾问题对俄罗斯对外政策，尤其是对华政策进行测试之意，一旦俄罗斯上套，在实质性瓦解中俄战略互信的问题上可谓一步到位。

需要强调的是，俄罗斯胆敢拿台湾问题和中国讨价还价，就是一种不惜损害中国核心利益与西方媾和的具体表现，这是中国不可能接受的，也一定会触发中国的强烈报复，比如，将俄罗斯送上被西方实质性消化的快车道。

特朗普显然是抓住了俄罗斯急于在乌克兰问题上达成交易的致命弱点并大加利用，所以，乌克兰这个当初美国（西方）基于微调后中东政策形成的“时间陷阱”，从2014年“套死”俄罗斯，同时借此“死套”俄罗斯，包括中东利益、南亚利益等的“乌克兰陷阱”，特朗普是不会放弃的。也就是说，无论何时，如何变化，乌克兰陷阱对俄罗斯都是始终存在的。

所谓“大加利用”的意思就在于，美国（西方）要借“乌克兰陷阱”为战略支点，死死勒住套在俄罗斯这头北极熊嘴上的嚼子，极限施展威逼利诱俄罗斯在美国（西方）需要的战略方向进行配合。讽刺的是，这个早在俄乌战争爆发之前就有的，且特朗普口中的“俄乌停战计划”还未正式展开，“乌克兰陷阱”这位“老演员”便再次粉墨登场了。

顺便说一句，就算美国（西方）“好心”将整个乌克兰交给俄罗斯，让乌克兰成为俄罗斯的一部分，恐怕俄罗斯也很难消化三年俄乌战争中俄罗斯人和乌克兰人之间结下的血海深仇，更无法推动乌克兰重建并解决近千万人口的就业问题。如果此时西方从中作梗，挑拨是非，俄罗斯不仅背上了一个巨大的经济包袱，而且“动荡的乌克兰地区”更会让俄罗斯国家安全永无宁日。

●于是特朗普就顺着普京的这个“心病”，瞄着俄罗斯至今不肯实质性放下的阿富汗政策小九九将计就计

2月16日，俄罗斯总统发言人佩斯科夫称，就明斯克协议缔结期间西方在谈判过程中的欺骗行为而对西方进行指责已毫无意义，俄罗斯已经吸取了必要的教训，并将在未来加以借鉴。

佩斯科夫所指的“欺骗行为”当然是德国前总理默克尔和法国前总统奥朗德在明斯克问题上对俄罗斯的欺骗。明斯克协议给了西方充分时间准备战争。也许俄罗斯在明斯克协议问题上没有被骗，俄乌战争也不会进行三年之久，甚至战争不会爆发。所以，针对特朗普炮制的“乌克兰问题解决方案”，俄罗斯国内存在广泛质疑。无奈，人总是愿意相信自己愿意相信的事情，俄罗斯就是典型。

网络公开资料，“人总是愿意相信自己愿意相信的事情”源自巴纳姆效应，又称福勒效应，星相效应。是1948年由美国心理学家伯特伦·福勒通过试验证明的一种心理学现象。指人很容易相信一个抽象的一般性的人格描述，并认为它特别适合自己并准确地揭示了自己的人格特点，即使内容空洞。

大家知道，很多人找人算命，大多数是遇到了非常不顺心的事情，算命先生就会借对方的弱点并顺着对方说话，套对方的话。再加上察言观色，观察言谈举止和着装打扮等综合判断你是一个什么人，有怎样的诉求等。这有一点类似DeepSeek的“深度思考”功能。所以，算命先生总能说对方愿意听的，比如，对不幸遭遇的同情，为对方提供某种情绪价值等。

有趣的是，有资料称，“人总是愿意相信自己愿意相信的事情”在国际上较为有影响力的政治人物中，俄罗斯总统普京表达过类似的意思。今天的普京，一边惧怕咄咄逼人的西方，另一边更畏惧日益强大的中国。特朗普很清楚普京急于结束俄乌战争，于是特朗普就顺着普京的这个“心病”，瞄着俄罗斯至今不肯实质性放下的阿富汗政策小九九将计就计。

完整的俄罗斯阿富汗政策小九九有两层含义，第一，是借助中国之力遏制西方；第二，是借西方之力防备中国。尽管我们将俄罗斯的这个“小心思”冠以“阿富汗”这个名头，主要因为当初“9.11事件”后俄方默认美军“蛙跳”进入俄罗斯的腹地——中亚地区的阿富汗，但是，中亚地区并不是唯一能够起到防备，甚至遏制中国的点，此外，还有南亚问题，更有台湾问题。

毛主席说过，以色列是帝国主义在中东方向开的后门，台湾是帝国主义在西太方向开的后门。所谓“后门”可以是西方进行战略腾挪的支点，也是给地区相关国家设下的陷阱。这个道理俄罗斯自然知晓。所以，特朗普拉着普京表面上说的是乌克兰问题，实际上则暗示俄罗斯，美国愿意帮俄罗斯的忙。具体的办法就是，首先，结束俄乌战争；其次，换个地方一起遏制中国。

●再谈特朗普政府在对华、对欧、对俄关系上欲寻找“最大公约数”，为“攘外必先安内”的既定政策打开操作空间

值得一提的是，美国就台湾问题精心设计陷阱，除了针对俄罗斯外，顺带也将信号传递给欧盟、日、韩等。如果欧、日、韩也有意与俄罗斯一道加入遏制中国，对于特朗普暂时稳固西太、中东和乌克兰三个战略方向是有好处的。

当然，文章的切入点可以选在台湾问题上，但文章落笔未必也在台湾问题上，恐怕无论是特朗普，还是普京本人，都无法想象在台湾问题上触怒中国的后果，所以，切入点选在台湾问题上，也有“取其上得其中”的意思。也就是说，既然台湾问题太过敏感，那“南亚破局”进程俄罗斯可以有所表示吧。

在欧洲看来，俄美谈乌克兰问题，欧洲被晾在一边，自然恼火。但对美国来说，无论是施压欧盟，还是利诱俄罗斯，虽然手段不同，但目的是相同的，那就是在对华、对欧、对俄关系上寻找“最大公约数”，为“攘外必先安内”的特朗普政府既定政策打开操作空间。在这个过程中，比如，在台湾问题上，俄罗斯不敢说什么，但欧洲就未必了。

特朗普知道，在“合纵连横，远交进攻”策略下，美国利诱俄罗斯挖国际社会的墙角，中国也对欧盟陈明成破利害挖美帝的墙角。由于欧盟对中国基本无牌可打，所以美国通过威逼利诱，威逼为主的方式，一边在乌克兰问题上对欧盟施压，另一方面将台湾问题作为筹码提给欧盟，让其获得一份可以和中国讨价还价的筹码。而一旦欧盟上套，美国在乌克兰问题上继续施压欧盟，欧盟想要拉中国做“外援”就没那么容易了。所以，我们提醒欧洲方面，尤其是法国和德国，在台湾问题上要三思而行。在我们看来，由于欧洲内部向来很难形成统一内部意见，在台湾问题上发出错误言论是很有可能的。

特朗普的算计不可谓不精妙，但同样是玩“合纵连横，远交近攻”，但玩出的效果，中美两家的综合实力对比，尤其是这一过程中双方的心境可谓截然不同。美国最致命的弱点就是实力不济，而且随时间的流逝不断快速下滑。美国表面上看是在进行战略扩张，实际上则因为力有不逮或主动或被动进行战略收缩，两者之间矛盾重重。

美国，作为世界上唯一的“超级大国”，奉行帝国主义的第一霸权国家，某种意义上说，在战略上是不能收缩的。道理类似《三国演义》中鲁肃对孙权的劝解：孙权手下的任何一个大臣都能投降，投降后也会得到重用，但作为“江东土皇帝”的孙权来说，则没有任何可能投降的空间。所以，特朗普就算明知战略扩张不可为，也必须为之，从这一点看，特朗普也不可能轻易将乌克兰问题的主导权拱手相让。

需要补充的是，如果台湾问题太过敏感，俄罗斯不敢轻举妄动，不排除美国或会拿南海问题做文章继续测试俄罗斯。在我们看来，对此俄罗斯或会动些脑筋，而中国将视情况具体而定，是否将俄罗斯的“歪脑筋”放在“翁城效应”中处理。比如，俄罗斯向南海相关国家出售武器，拓展与相关国家的双边关系也就算了，但如果明目张胆帮助菲律宾在南海和中国搞对抗，恐怕中国不会坐视不理！

●这种各方势力相互制衡、彼此影响的，极度错综复杂的叙利亚局势后续发展总体上是对国际社会有利

就上几个小节中讨论的乌克兰问题继续展开讨论。

2月17日，沙特阿拉伯王储兼首相穆罕默德在首都利雅得会见到访的美国国务卿鲁比奥，双方就地区和国际局势发展以及为实现安全与稳定“正在进行的努力”交换了意见。

在我们的观察与评估中，美国邀请俄方到沙特首都进行双边会晤，看似给沙特面子，但实际上也想借沙特影响力稳住自己在中东的存在。

尽管如此，美国深知，单独依靠沙特是不行的，因为沙特的背后就是中国，所以有必要重新“引俄入叙”。美国知道，俄罗斯很容易与沙特之间产生矛盾，尤其在输欧能源问题上。不难想象，如果中东输欧能源管线最终建成，欧洲对过于依赖俄罗斯（以“北溪”天然气管道项目为例）和美国（现有的购买美国高价液化天然气）的过去的以及现行的能源输送方式就会立刻失去兴趣。这也是美俄在叙利亚问题后续发展中有可能进行合作的点。这对于一心扩大在叙利亚影响力，尤其是期待打通一条中东向欧洲输送能源管线的沙特而言是打心里不愿看到的。

不过，沙特这个国家并不简单，尽管如此，但沙特能够较为清晰地判断当前阶段自己的首要战略需求，那就是在已处于“九龙治水”状态的叙利亚问题后续发展中尽量扩大在叙利亚的影响力。为此，沙特就要反手利用欲在，甚至已经在叙利亚“有所作为”的各自的小九九和小算计，以求为达成自己的战略目的所用。所以，沙特虽然在美俄可能在输欧能源问题上的走近心中不满，但还是选择先扩大在叙利亚影响力，而将中东输欧能源管线的事情暂时放一放。

对欧盟来说也类似，尽管欧盟非常热切希望建成一条既不依赖俄罗斯，也不依赖美国的中东输欧能源管线，但对欧盟来说，当务之急先与沙特合作，扩大欧盟在叙利亚的影响力再说。

不难看出，方方面面都在打叙利亚问题后续发展的主意，但只有站在中国角度观察问题，叙利亚问题后续发展过程中可能出现的，或这样，或那样短期，尤其是长期问题，传统安全层面和非传统安全层面的矛盾才能统一。所以，某种意义上说，这种各方势力相互制衡、彼此影响的，极度错综复杂的叙利亚局势后续发展总体上是对国际社会有利。

目前阶段，中国还不能立刻直接介入叙利亚问题及后续发展，比如，大量实质性投入资源。未来，通过推动途径叙利亚的中东输欧能源管线的开通，就能客观上将众多中东国家、土耳其，以及许多重要的欧洲国家“绑定”在一起，并为“一带一路”添砖加瓦。

需要补充一点的是，国际社会务必警惕警惕，特朗普在炒作“占领加沙、搞史无前例的地产项目”，并以此要讨好所谓“犹太资本”的过程中，有一种可能，那就是：埃及，约旦接收难民之外，乌克兰也可以。比如，把“加沙搬到乌克兰”。当然，可能性并非意味着一定要执行，但可以作为“备选方案”。如果特朗普促成此事，也许会获得诺贝尔和平奖。反过来，一旦特朗普政府“攘外必先安内”的策略达到一定预期效果，在特朗普政府的中东政策再度向相对远离2024年11月5日的拜登政府回归后，把“以色列搬到乌克兰”，同样可以作为另一个“备选方案”。在这种可能性并不算小的战略设想中，乌克兰问题是不可或缺的重要战略腾挪支撑点，所以，即便从这一点看，特朗普也绝不会轻易将乌克兰问题的主导权让与他人。

●只要美国“内斗”没有停歇，特朗普政府就会继续执行“攘内必先安外”政策，包括中国在内的方方面面都应抓住这个机会

在本次讨论的最后，提醒大家关注两则新闻报道，尤其是第二条。

第一条：2月15日，中共中央政治局委员、外交部长王毅在出席慕尼黑安全会议期间应约会见乌克兰外长瑟比加。

这条新闻报道是欧洲在中美各玩“合纵连横，远交近攻”过程中，欧美联盟有所松动的具体表现之一，这当然对美国不利。

第二条：美外交官秘密与卢卡申科会面，或达成放松制裁协议。

这条新闻报道恐怕首先值得俄罗斯方面注意。俄方近乎癫狂地与美国走近首先在俄罗斯“最后的盟友”白俄罗斯造成强烈冲击。即便美国这次联络白俄罗斯是有意为之，但事情从开始“一个巴掌拍不响，莫怪一方”。也许看到这里，那位被东方时事解读贴上“渣女”标签的德国前总理默克尔直呼内行，看来当初在明斯克协议上，自己还是太保守了！

最后需要补充的是，透过特朗普谈俄罗斯威胁北约的言论并称丝毫不同意这一最新动态不难看出，美国对自己最大的盟友——欧盟，也是极尽威逼利诱之能事。当然，这样做，同样着眼于稳定内政，具体办法就是通过利益输送。

不言自明的是，除去“美国的北约”就是欧盟，所以，美国的这番言论，明摆着是在吓唬欧盟。关键在于，欧盟离开美国在军事上就是个侏儒。在特朗普看来，欧洲骂两句美国可以，但不能损害美国资本利益（欧洲要继续买美国的“军火版的福寿膏”），否则就开门放熊！

总之，只要美国“内斗”没有停歇，特朗普政府就会继续执行“攘内必先安外”政策，包括中国在内，方方面面都应抓住这个机会，比如，欧盟，沙特，埃及，土耳其等。以中东局势为例，尽管看上像“一锅乱炖”，但如果想要让“一锅乱炖”软烂入味，绝对需要时间，而且这个时间还不能短。至于特朗普政府，大可继续执行“攘内必先安外”政策，而我们则继续“爆兵”“爆矿”，继续加速产业转型、升级，尽可能稳定中国周边地区，稳步推动“经济内循环”与“循环升级”。

声明：具体内容如有出入，请以“东方时事解读”音频为准。

Monday, February 17, 2025, Issue No. 1181

Why is the US State Department's revision of "US-Taiwan relations," deleting the phrase "does not support Taiwan independence," considered a carefully designed trap?

[Media Coverage]

On February 16th, according to British media reports, in an email sent later that evening (Beijing time), a spokesperson for the US State Department stated that "as is customary, we are updating our fact sheet" to inform the public about the so-called unofficial relationship between the United States and the Taiwan authorities. The spokesperson said, "The United States remains committed to the One-China policy, is dedicated to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and opposes any unilateral changes to the status quo by any party. We support cross-Strait dialogue and look forward to resolving cross-Strait differences in a peaceful, non-coercive manner acceptable to the people on both sides."

On February 16th, US media reported that US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Smith visited Belarus on February 12th (Wednesday) and met with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. The report emphasized that this was the first meeting between a US State Department representative and a Belarusian leader in five years. The media pointed out that the meeting may signal a warming of US-Belarus relations. The visit of US diplomat Smith to Belarus has brought hope for reconciliation between the United States and Belarus. Earlier, it was reported that the United States and Belarus would reach a significant agreement to ease sanctions. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Smith discussed this issue with Belarusian President Lukashenko and the head of the Belarusian KGB, Ivan Tertel.

【Discussion Summary】

● Trump's "Russia-Ukraine ceasefire plan" has not yet been officially launched, but the "Ukraine trap," this "veteran actor," has once again taken the stage.

On the issue of "breaking the deadlock in South Asia," which essentially involves dismantling Sino-Russian strategic trust, the US government, from the Obama administration in 2014, to the Trump administration in 2017 (first term), to the Biden administration in 2021, and now the Trump administration (second term), has never given up, although each administration has differed in specific execution methods.

At the beginning of his second term, Trump continuously focused on substantively dismantling Sino-Russian strategic trust. For example, Trump revived the old tune of nuclear disarmament, stating his desire to discuss nuclear disarmament with the leaders of China and Russia. It is worth mentioning that in October 2018, then-US National Security Advisor John Bolton, during talks in Moscow, tried to bring up the topic of China and attempted to present the US's opinions on China in economic and military-political fields, but was explicitly rejected by the Russian side. Russia stated that any issues involving its Chinese partner should only be discussed with Beijing.

We have noticed the news report where the US State Department spokesperson responded to the deletion of the phrase "does not support Taiwan independence" but still claimed to adhere to the One-China policy.

Trump wants to discuss the Ukraine issue with Putin, even adopting an attitude that seems to ignore the EU's feelings, while simultaneously "setting the pace" on the Taiwan issue. Obviously, there is an intention for the United States to use the Taiwan issue to test Russia's foreign policy, especially its policy towards China. Once Russia takes the bait, it would be a one-step achievement in substantively dismantling Sino-Russian strategic trust.

It should be emphasized that if Russia dares to bargain with China over the Taiwan issue, it would be a specific manifestation of seeking reconciliation with the West at the cost of damaging China's core interests, which is unacceptable to China and will certainly trigger strong retaliation from China, such as accelerating Russia's substantive consumption by the West.

Trump has clearly seized upon Russia's critical weakness of eagerly seeking a deal on the Ukraine issue and is exploiting it to the fullest. Therefore, Ukraine, which was originally a "time trap" formed by the US (West) based on its adjusted Middle East policy, has "trapped" Russia since 2014, and continues to "tightly bind" Russia, including its interests in the Middle East, South Asia, etc. The "Ukraine trap" is something Trump will not abandon. That is to say, no matter when or how it changes, the Ukraine trap will always exist for Russia.

The phrase "exploiting it to the fullest" means that the US (West) intends to use the "Ukraine trap" as a strategic fulcrum to tightly control the muzzle of this Russian polar bear and exert extreme pressure and enticement to coerce Russia into cooperating in the strategic direction desired by the US (West). Ironically, this "Ukraine trap," which existed even before the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war and Trump's "Russia-Ukraine ceasefire plan" that has not yet been officially launched, has once again taken the stage as this "veteran actor."

Incidentally, even if the US (West) "kindly" hands over the entire Ukraine to Russia, allowing Ukraine to become part of Russia, it is unlikely that Russia could digest the deep-seated hatred between Russians and Ukrainians forged during the three-year Russia-Ukraine war, let alone promote Ukraine's reconstruction and address the employment issue for nearly ten million people. If the West stirs up trouble and sows discord at this time, Russia will not only bear a huge economic burden but also face endless instability in its national security due to the "turbulent Ukrainian region."

● So, Trump played along with Putin's "Achilles' heel" and devised a plan based on Russia's reluctance to substantially abandon its Afghanistan policy.

On February 16th, Russian Presidential Spokesperson Peskov stated that it is meaningless to accuse the West of deceptive behavior during the negotiations on the Minsk Agreement, as Russia has already learned the necessary lessons and will apply them in the future.

The "deceptive behavior" referred to by Peskov is, of course, the deception of Russia by former German Chancellor Merkel and former French President Hollande on the Minsk issue. The Minsk Agreement gave the West ample time to prepare for war. Perhaps if Russia had not been deceived on the Minsk Agreement, the Russia-Ukraine war would not have lasted three years, or even erupted at all. Therefore, there is widespread skepticism in Russia regarding Trump's proposed "solution to the Ukraine issue." Helplessly, people tend to believe what they want to believe, and Russia is a typical example.

According to publicly available information, the phrase "people tend to believe what they want to believe" originates from the Barnum Effect, also known as the Forer Effect or the Star Effect. It is a psychological phenomenon proven by American psychologist Bertram Forer through experiments in 1948, referring to people's tendency to easily believe a general, abstract personality description and consider it particularly suitable for themselves, accurately revealing their personality traits, even if the content is vague.

Many people who seek fortune-telling often do so when facing very unfavorable situations. Fortune-tellers will exploit the other person's weaknesses, agree with them, and prompt them to speak, using observation skills to assess their appearance, behavior, clothing, and overall demeanor to determine what kind of person they are and what their needs are. This is somewhat similar to the "deep thinking" function of DeepSeek. Therefore, fortune-tellers can always say what the other person wants to hear, such as expressing sympathy for their misfortunes and providing emotional support.

Interestingly, some sources suggest that Russian President Putin has expressed a similar sentiment to "people tend to believe what they want to believe" among internationally influential political figures. Today's Putin fears both the aggressive West and the increasingly powerful China. Trump is well aware of Putin's eagerness to end the Russia-Ukraine war, so he plays along with Putin's "Achilles' heel" and devises a plan based on Russia's reluctance to substantially abandon its Afghanistan policy.

Russia's complete Afghanistan policy has two layers of meaning: first, to contain the West with the help of China; second, to guard against China with the help of the West. Although we refer to this "careful scheme" of Russia's as the "Afghanistan" policy, mainly because Russia tacitly allowed US forces to "leapfrog" into Central Asia, Russia's hinterland, after the "9/11 incident," Central Asia is not the only region that can serve to guard against or even contain China. Additionally, there are issues in South Asia and the Taiwan issue.

Chairman Mao once said that Israel is the back door opened by imperialism in the Middle East, while Taiwan is the back door opened by imperialism in the Western Pacific. A "back door" can be a fulcrum for the West to strategically maneuver and also a trap set for relevant countries in the region. Russia naturally understands this principle. Therefore, while Trump and Putin ostensibly discuss the Ukraine issue, Trump actually hints to Russia that the United States is willing to help. The specific approach is, first, to end the Russia-Ukraine war; second, to jointly contain China elsewhere.

● Revisiting Trump's Administration's Pursuit of a "Greatest Common Divisor" in Relations with China, Europe, and Russia to Create Room for Maneuver in Its "Unite Internally Before Resisting Externally" Policy

It is worth mentioning that the United States has meticulously set traps regarding the Taiwan issue, targeting not only Russia but also sending signals to the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. If Europe, Japan, and South Korea are interested in joining Russia in containing China, it would be beneficial for Trump to temporarily stabilize the three strategic directions of the Western Pacific, the Middle East, and Ukraine.

Of course, while the Taiwan issue can serve as an entry point for the article, it need not be the focus. Neither Trump nor Putin himself can likely imagine the consequences of provoking China on the Taiwan issue. Therefore, choosing the Taiwan issue as the entry point also carries the meaning of "aiming high to achieve something in between." That is, since the Taiwan issue is too sensitive, perhaps Russia can make some gestures in the "South Asian breakthrough" process..

From Europe's perspective, being sidelined during Russia-US talks on Ukraine is naturally irritating. However, for the US, whether it's pressuring the EU or enticing Russia, the goal is the same: to find a "greatest common divisor" in relations with China, Europe, and Russia, creating room for maneuver in the Trump administration's established policy of "unite internally before resisting externally." In this process, for example, while Russia may not dare to speak out on the Taiwan issue, Europe might.

Trump knows that under the strategy of "diplomatic maneuvering and distant alliances for offensive actions," the US entices Russia to undermine the international community, while China clarifies the pros and cons to the EU, undermining the US. Since the EU has little leverage against China, the US employs a mix of coercion and inducement, with coercion being the primary means. On one hand, it pressures the EU on the Ukraine issue, and on the other, it offers the Taiwan issue as a bargaining chip to the EU, allowing it to gain some leverage in negotiations with China. Once the EU takes the bait, it will be less easy for the EU to seek China's support as an "ally" when the US continues to pressure it on the Ukraine issue. Therefore, we caution European parties, especially France and Germany, to think carefully before acting on the Taiwan issue. In our view, given that Europe has always struggled to form a unified internal opinion, it is quite possible that erroneous statements on the Taiwan issue may be made.

Trump's calculations are indeed ingenious, but while both China and the US are playing the game of "diplomatic maneuvering and distant alliances for offensive actions," the outcomes and the mindset of the two sides during this process are vastly different. The US's most fatal weakness is its inadequate strength, which is rapidly declining over time. On the surface, the US is engaged in strategic expansion, but in reality, it is either voluntarily or involuntarily engaged in strategic retraction due to its inability to cope, leading to numerous contradictions.

As the world's only "superpower" and the leading imperialist hegemon, the US, in a sense, cannot afford to retract strategically. This is similar to the advice Lu Su gave to Sun Quan in "Romance of the Three Kingdoms": Any of Sun Quan's subjects could surrender and still be valued, but as the "ruler of the land east of the Yangtze," Sun Quan has no room for surrender. Therefore, even if Trump knows that strategic expansion is not feasible, he must still pursue it. From this perspective, Trump is unlikely to easily relinquish control over the Ukraine issue.

It should be added that if the Taiwan issue is too sensitive for Russia to act, the US may test Russia by stirring up issues in the South China Sea. In our view, Russia may devise some strategies in response, and China will respond based on the specific situation, deciding whether to address Russia's "clever schemes" within the "encirclement effect." For example, if Russia sells weapons to relevant countries in the South China Sea and expands bilateral relations with them, that might be acceptable, but if Russia openly assists the Philippines in confronting China in the South China Sea, China is unlikely to stand idly by!

● The Subsequent Development of the Extremely Complex Syrian Situation, with Various Forces Checking and Influencing Each Other, is Generally Beneficial to the International Community

Continuing the discussion on the Ukraine issue from the previous sections.

On February 17th, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed met with visiting US Secretary of State Rubio in the capital Riyadh. They exchanged views on regional and international developments and the "ongoing efforts" to achieve security and stability.

In our observation and assessment, the US invited Russia to a bilateral meeting in the Saudi capital, ostensibly to give face to Saudi Arabia, but in reality, it also aimed to leverage Saudi influence to stabilize its presence in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the US is well aware that relying solely on Saudi Arabia is insufficient, as Saudi Arabia has China behind it. Therefore, it is necessary to "reintroduce Russia into Syria." The US knows that tensions can easily arise between Russia and Saudi Arabia, especially regarding energy exports to Europe. It is not hard to imagine that if the Middle East-Europe energy pipeline is eventually built, Europe will immediately lose interest in its past and current energy supply methods, which are overly dependent on Russia (exemplified by the "Nord Stream" natural gas pipeline project) and the US (purchasing expensive liquefied natural gas from the US). This is a point where the US and Russia may potentially cooperate in the subsequent development of the Syrian issue. This is something that Saudi Arabia, which is eager to expand its influence in Syria and especially hopes to establish a Middle East-Europe energy pipeline, would be reluctant to see.

However, Saudi Arabia is not a simple country. Despite this, it can clearly identify its primary strategic needs at this stage, which is to expand its influence in Syria as much as possible amidst the already "chaotic" situation. To this end, Saudi Arabia will leverage the various small schemes and calculations of those who want to or have already made "contributions" in Syria, in order to achieve its strategic goals. Therefore, although Saudi Arabia is dissatisfied with the potential rapprochement between the US and Russia on the issue of energy exports to Europe, it has chosen to focus on expanding its influence in Syria first and temporarily set aside the issue of the Middle East-Europe energy pipeline.

Similarly, for the EU, although it eagerly hopes to establish a Middle East-Europe energy pipeline that is not dependent on either Russia or the US, its top priority is to cooperate with Saudi Arabia to expand the EU's influence in Syria.

It is evident that all parties are eyeing the subsequent development of the Syrian issue, but only from China's perspective can the short-term and especially long-term issues, as well as the contradictions at both traditional and non-traditional security levels, that may arise during the subsequent development of the Syrian issue be unified. Therefore, in a sense, the subsequent development of the extremely complex Syrian situation, with various forces checking and influencing each other, is generally beneficial to the international community.

At this stage, China cannot immediately and directly intervene in the Syrian issue and its subsequent development, such as making substantial resource investments. In the future, by promoting the opening of the Middle East-Europe energy pipeline passing through Syria, many Middle Eastern countries, Turkey, and many important European countries can be objectively "bound" together, contributing to the "Belt and Road" initiative.

It should be added that the international community must be vigilant. Trump is hyping up the idea of "occupying Gaza and undertaking an unprecedented real estate project" to please the so-called "Jewish capital." One possibility is that in addition to Egypt and Jordan accepting refugees, Ukraine could also do so. For example, "moving Gaza to Ukraine." Of course, a possibility does not mean it will be implemented, but it can serve as a "contingency plan." If Trump facilitates this, he may even win the Nobel Peace Prize. Conversely, once the Trump administration's "unite internally before resisting externally" strategy achieves a certain level of success, and its Middle East policy shifts away from the approach taken by the Biden administration as of November 5, 2024, "moving Israel to Ukraine" could also serve as another "contingency plan." In this strategic vision, which is not a small possibility, the Ukraine issue is an indispensable and important strategic pivot point. Therefore, even from this perspective, Trump will never easily relinquish control over the Ukraine issue to others.

●As long as the "internal strife" in the US continues, the Trump administration will persist in its policy of "securing the external by stabilizing the internal," and all parties, including China, should seize this opportunity.

At the end of this discussion, I would like to draw your attention to two news reports, especially the second one.

The first report: On February 15th, Wang Yi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Chinese foreign minister, met with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

This news report is one of the specific manifestations of the loosening of the Europe-US alliance amidst the "united front and distant attack" strategies played by China and the US, which is certainly detrimental for the US.

The second report: US diplomat secretly meets with Lukashenko, possibly reaching an agreement to ease sanctions.

This news report is probably first and foremost noteworthy for Russia. Russia's almost frantic approach to getting closer to the US has caused a strong impact on Belarus, its "last ally." Even if the US's outreach to Belarus this time is deliberate, it still takes two to tango. Perhaps upon seeing this, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom East News Interpretation has labeled as a "femme fatale," would exclaim that she was too conservative in the Minsk Agreement!

Lastly, it should be noted that through Trump's comments on Russia's threat to NATO and his disagreement with this latest development, it is evident that the US is resorting to coercion and inducement to stabilize its closest ally, the EU. Of course, this is also aimed at stabilizing domestic politics, specifically by transferring benefits.

It goes without saying that apart from "NATO of the US," there is the EU. Therefore, the US's remarks are clearly intended to intimidate the EU. The key point is that without the US, the EU is a dwarf militarily. In Trump's view, Europe can criticize the US a little, but it must not harm US capital interests (Europe must continue to buy America's "military opium"), otherwise, the US will open the door and let the bear in!

In summary, as long as the "internal strife" in the US continues, the Trump administration will persist in its policy of "securing the external by stabilizing the internal," and all parties, including China, should seize this opportunity. For example, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and others. Taking the Middle East situation as an example, although it may seem like a "chaotic stew," making it tender and flavorful requires time, and not a short amount of it. As for the Trump administration, it can continue to implement its policy of "securing the external by stabilizing the internal," while we continue to "mass produce troops and resources," accelerate industrial transformation and upgrading, stabilize China's neighboring regions as much as possible, and steadily promote the "domestic economic cycle" and "cycle upgrading."

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