乌克兰战争已经失败!默克尔的前军事顾问大声疾呼!

北约在乌克兰对俄罗斯的代理战争失败后,德国的军事形势不仅糟糕,而且是一场灾难。许多人并没有意识到这种局势对欧洲最大的工业国之一意味着什么。在本讲座中,埃里希-瓦德博士详细揭露了德国和欧洲安全的诸多弊端。

乌克兰战争已经失败!默克尔的前军事顾问大声疾呼!

乌克兰战争已经失败!默克尔的前军事顾问大声疾呼!

Michaelloong
10小时前
German problem is a result of it being the US semi-colony..

德国的问题是因为它是美国的半殖民地。


Julianpetkov
8小时前
German problem is - being a province of the Greek Empire aka "the West".It has been reduced from a nation to a population.

德国的问题在于--它是希腊帝国(又称 "西方")的一个省。它已从一个国家沦为一个族群。


Focast
8小时前(修改过)
In the European context Greece has been the East for centuries. Also has not been an empire for nearly 600 years. Even with this odd statement of yours, Greece is not the custodian of Western culture. No population in the West actually tries to emulate Greek Imperial philosophy or political structure.

在欧洲范围内,希腊数百年来一直是东方国家。希腊也有近 600 年没有成为帝国了。即使你说得再奇怪,希腊也不是西方文化的守护者。西方没有一个民族试图模仿希腊帝国的哲学或政治结构。


PeacefulRally
5小时前
Europe should've got out of NATO in 1991. The ww2 generation had aged out by then

欧洲本应在 1991 年退出北约。那时,二战时期的一代人已经老去。


Yamilandres
4小时前
I'd remove the word "semi" from your line, then I'll fully agree.Also, not only DE, but indeed the whole of Europe.

我想把你台词中的 "半"字去掉,这样我就完全同意了。另外,不仅是德国,整个欧洲都是如此。


Codyraugh
3小时前
I wouldn't put it as colony, because often colonies are at least tributaries to their master nation. Instead the US wastes money on Germany for next to no returns. More the EU members of NATO are like welfare recipients, the NATO military doctrine assumes USA has achieved air dominance, and every one of its failures will be covered by US troops.

我不会把它称为殖民地,因为殖民地通常至少是其主宰国的附属国。相反,美国把钱浪费在德国身上,几乎没有回报。北约的欧盟成员国更像是福利接受者,北约的军事学说假设美国已经取得了制空权,它的每一次失败都将由美国军队掩盖。


This is an absurdly unhealthy mindset for any military force. Yet Britain, an island Nation, could have its Navy's ass handed to it by the Japanese Defense forces' fleet, and remember by treaty up until less than a decade ago, Japan wasn't allowed to even have a proper military, and their navy was restricted by conventions that limited them harder than the League of Nations agreement they were forced into after WW1. Yet Britain allowed their fleet to atrophy away into relatively nothing.

对于任何军事力量来说,这种心态都是不健康的。然而,作为一个岛国,英国的海军却可能被日本防卫军的舰队打得屁滚尿流,要知道,根据条约,直到不到十年前,日本都不被允许拥有适当的军队,他们的海军受到的限制比一战后被迫签订的国联协议还要严格。然而,英国却任由其舰队逐渐萎缩,变得一无所有。


If it wasn't for the fact that people can actively see troops and planes and expect to see them in military parades the EU nations would have probably allowed those to decay into nothing off the assumption that the US would handle all those aspects of war for them as well.And now we're seeing the NATO doctrine absolutely failing despite the best of last gen US equipment and the more common of current gen EU equipment being shipped on mass to Ukraine.

如果不是因为人们可以在阅兵式上亲眼看到军队和飞机,并期望看到它们,欧盟国家很可能会认为美国也会为他们处理战争中的所有这些问题,从而任由它们衰败到一无所有。而现在,我们看到北约的理论完全失败了,尽管上一代美国装备和更常见的当前一代欧盟装备被大量运往乌克兰。


LaurineCurrin
7小时前
I believe Russia applied the rights of self determination of the 5 regions of Ukraine, upon the same "rights of determination" that the US/Nato applied to Kosovo.How can one be right, and the other wrong, because it's all based on which side of the fence you place yourself....

我相信俄罗斯对乌克兰5个地区行使了自决权,就像美国/北约对科索沃行使的“自决权”一样。怎么可能一个是对的,另一个是错的,因为这完全取决于你把自己放在篱笆的哪一边....


Ricardusdani
4小时前
Just like East Timor for referendum, when in favor of west they call it legit..when not  then call it fake ..

就像东帝汶的全民公决一样,支持西方的就说是合法的,不支持的就说是假的......


Klausschwabs
9小时前
There is one commonality in every dire situation globally - the USA is involved.

全球每一个危急情况都有一个共同点--美国参与其中。


Yndeendy
8小时前
When was USA right - apart from entering WWII on the side of UK and USSR?

除了在二战中站在英国和苏联一边之外,美国什么时候是正确的?


Foxxyboxxy
8小时前
even then, they joined in, after the war was basically won by 27 million Russians and picked up the pieces...

即便如此,在 2700 万俄罗斯人基本上赢得战争并收拾残局之后,他们还是加入了战争......


Mariadamen
6小时前
Even then american compagnies funded and supported the moustache man.

即使当时美国公司也资助和支持小胡子。


TheGreatAmphibian
3小时前
The USA won’t send conventional forces into combat for Ukraine. The casualties would be horrific and the political consequences at home would be devastating.

美国不会为乌克兰派遣常规部队参战。这将造成可怕的人员伤亡,并在国内造成毁灭性的政治后果。


Danwelterweig
3小时前
Ukraine is now losing 2200 to 3000 men a day. This can't keep going on forever. Ukraine is losing men they cannot replace.

乌克兰现在每天损失 2200 到 3000 人,这种情况不可能永远持续下去,乌克兰正在损失他们无法补充的人员。


Ajstyles
7小时前
If he was the advisor to Merkel, pretty much yeah, he just knows how bad it is going against a country that has the economy and resources to supply their military in attrition warfare against NATO. Because NATO itself doesn't do well on war of attrition, US never won any attrition warfare and actually avoids it.

如果他是默克尔的顾问,那就差不多了,他只知道与一个有经济实力和资源的国家作对,在消耗战中向北约提供军队是多么糟糕的事情。因为北约本身就不擅长打消耗战,美国从来没有打赢过任何一场消耗战,而且实际上是在逃避消耗战。


Uchennaabosi
2小时前
This conflict must also be viewed from an economic point of view to properly get a balanced opinion. Prior to 2014, the United State announced a decision to pivot east, this implies moving the bulk of it's military asset and financial resources towards that direction. But why?

要正确看待这场冲突,还必须从经济角度出发。2014 年之前,美国宣布决定向东转移,这意味着美国的大部分军事资产和财政资源都将向东转移。但为什么要这样做呢?


To answer this critical question and how it relates to the present unfolding event we see today, we have to establish two things:-
(1) Who makes these decision
(2) What is their goal/interest.

要回答这个关键问题,以及它与我们今天看到的正在发生的事件之间的关系,我们必须确定两件事:
(1) 谁做出这些决定
(2) 他们的目标/利益是什么。


this decision are made by the owners & controllers of global financial capitals(OCGFC). This group of people have no national identity but are cut from mainly Europe and America, they are not patriotic neither are they loyal or disloyal to any country or people. they mostly operate in the derivative market which eclipse the capital of the real economy, the power that they wield appear to most as the power of the west but on the contrary the west is just an effective instrument for them. America is their most important captured state asset because of its geography and  massive military and financial might.

这些决定是由全球金融资本(OCGFC)的所有者和控制者做出的。这群人没有国家认同感,但主要来自欧洲和美国,他们不爱国,也不忠于或不忠于任何国家或民族。他们主要在衍生品市场运作,这使实体经济的资本黯然失色,他们掌握的权力在大多数人看来是西方的权力,但恰恰相反,西方只是他们的有效工具。美国是他们攫取的最重要的国有资产,因为其地理位置和庞大的军事和金融实力。


2)their goal is expansion of profit and market share. A critical look at Europe shows a shrinking demography and lack of resources. Prior to now the Europe could rely on global/colonial market and financial capital form the state (marshall plan). Now the global market is been diluted by emerging economy from Asia. It's very own market is already saturated, with finite resources and diminishing labour and consumer market. The reality is that Europe has become unprofitable.

2)它们的目标是扩大利润和市场份额。对欧洲的批判性审视表明,欧洲的人口正在萎缩,资源匮乏。在此之前,欧洲可以依靠全球/殖民地市场和国家的金融资本(马歇尔计划)。现在,全球市场已被亚洲新兴经济体稀释。欧洲自身的市场已经饱和,资源有限,劳动力和消费市场日益减少。现实情况是,欧洲已经无利可图。


The OCGFC seeing this has made the decision to pull out financial capitals from Europe; the Europeans on their part have two options, it could either expand East by force or by an alliance. What lies east of Europe? Yes, Russia. An alliance between Europe and Russia will form an extremely powerful bloke that will threaten the USA hegemony or even unseat it which is a no no for the OCGFC. The decision was made to either conquer Russia or drive a wedge between them and Europe. This is typical of the capitalist, when the meet a dead end they manufacture a war.

全球金融资本(OCGFC)看到了这一点,决定从欧洲撤出金融资本;欧洲人则有两个选择,要么武力东扩,要么结盟东扩。欧洲以东是什么?没错,就是俄罗斯。欧洲和俄罗斯结盟将形成一个极其强大的集团,威胁到美国的霸权,甚至将其推翻,这对 OCGFC 来说是不可能的。决定要么征服俄罗斯,要么在他们和欧洲之间打入楔子。这是典型的资本主义做法,当他们走投无路时,就会制造战争。


Valerietweedie
9小时前
First secretary of the NATO, Lord Hastings Ismay: NATO is here to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down. Still, 80 years after the end of WW2 and 33 years after the fall of the USSR (and the end of the cold war) we have 40 American military basis in Germany.

北约第一秘书,黑斯廷斯·伊斯梅勋爵:北约的作用是把美国人留在里面,把俄国人赶出去,把德国人赶下去。尽管如此,二战结束80年后,苏联解体33年后(冷战结束),我们在德国有40个美国军事基地。


Tinaoffice
9小时前
They are gonna call it Ukraine’s defeat not the NATO’s anyway so…

无论如何,他们会说这是乌克兰的失败,而不是北约的失败,所以......


Rmharding
7小时前
It seems to me that NATO is not defending anyone, including Europe. It just helps to achieve political goals of the US.

在我看来,北约并没有保卫任何人,包括欧洲。它只是帮助实现美国的政治目标。


Ritastresswood
8小时前
Germany was a fascist country and had aggressively invaded Russia and caused millions of deaths. Now, it is a joke that he sees Russia as an aggressor. As to the hostility to China, it is more bizarre. He should consult his history book about Germany’s agression in China in the 19 century- burning down the Summer Palace and the scramble for concessions in the Eastern part of China.

德国是一个法西斯国家,曾侵略俄罗斯,造成数百万人死亡。现在,他却把俄罗斯视为侵略者,这简直是个笑话。至于敌视中国,那就更离奇了。他应该翻翻历史书,看看 19 世纪德国对中国的侵略--烧毁颐和园,争夺中国东部的租界。


China is thousands miles away from Germany. What had the people done to deserve to be killed because the allies just fancied trading their wares there? This ex-military is absurdly uneducated and swallowed the propaganda of the collective west. Since he is retired, he should use his time to re-educate himself.

中国与德国相距千里。这些人到底做了什么,会因为协约国喜欢在那里做买卖而被杀害?这位退役军人荒唐地没有受过教育,对西方集体的宣传信以为真。既然他已经退役,就应该利用时间接受再教育。


PecosChico
8小时前
"Europe must strengthen itself militarily and emancipate itself economically." That's exactly the opposite of what Merkel did.

"欧洲必须在军事上强大自己,在经济上解放自己"。这与默克尔的做法恰恰相反。


Larsnystrom
6小时前
The fact that the general refused to answer the question that Germany cannot address the Nordstream 2 bombing explains why Europe is in the current situation.

将军拒绝回答德国无法解决北溪 2 号管道爆炸的问题,这说明了为什么欧洲会陷入目前的局面。


MrPositive
8小时前
the former general keeps insisting NATO is a defensive alliance against threats. This begs the question, defense for what, and against which threats? If we go down the list of NATO operations, it would be quite clear that the object for defense is US hegemony and interest, in whatever shape or form it might be, from political to material like oil. As for threat, anything or anyone who threatens the said object is considered a threat.

这位前将军一直坚称北约是一个抵御威胁的防御性联盟。这就引出了一个问题:防御什么?如果我们细数一下北约的行动,就会非常清楚地看到,防御的对象是美国的霸权和利益,无论其形式或形式如何,从政治到石油等物质。至于威胁,任何威胁到上述目标的事物或人都会被视为威胁。


Take China for example. its not even in the same continent. Same as Russia, and yet they are the greatest threat to the US hegemony and interest, so they are a threat, despite the fact that they had deep economic ties with Europe and severing those is simply going to lead Europe down the path of economic stagnation. yet here we are, europe killing itself to ensure the actual object of defense remains intact. There is clear cause for concern that Russia can invade europe, given the past, however, this is also true that reason why this can happen is due to a lack of diplomacy.

以中国为例,它甚至不在同一个大陆上。俄罗斯也一样,但他们是美国霸权和利益的最大威胁,所以他们是威胁,尽管事实上他们与欧洲有着深厚的经济联系,而切断这些联系只会让欧洲走上经济停滞的道路。从过去的情况来看,人们显然有理由担心俄罗斯会入侵欧洲,但这也是事实,因为缺乏外交手段才会导致这种情况发生。


Now they are all scared that trump will come and they'll be left to their own devices. Question you should be asking is, why should it matter to Europe who becomes president in another continent? You will have Russia on your border regardless. It's common sense to have a strong diplomatic team for that.

现在,他们都害怕特朗普上台,然后他们就只能听天由命了。你们应该问的问题是,在另一个大洲,谁当总统与欧洲有什么关系?无论如何,你们的边境上都会有俄罗斯。为此组建强大的外交团队是常识。


Won't work now though. This is another reason why USA and NATO is so bad for Europe. To appease them, you antagonize Russia and China who are close by, to the point where there is active animosity now. Such a bizarre case of shortsightedness its baffling.

但现在行不通了。这就是为什么美国和北约对欧洲如此不利的另一个原因。为了安抚北约,你们与近在咫尺的俄罗斯和中国对立,以至于现在出现了积极的敌意,这种短视的怪现象令人费解。


Anaqueiroz
7小时前
The problem here lies on the wrong thinking that "west" must prevail. And the believe that NATO someway warranted peace is quite wrong, in my opinion!

这里的问题在于 "西方"必须占上风的错误思想。在我看来,认为北约在某种程度上为和平保驾护航是大错特错的!


Janwoldens
9小时前
Poland donated 300 tanks which are almost all destroyed, so there are no tanks left. Despite,the government is pushing for a direct involvement in the Eastern Front. Hooray.NATO's air defence can defend less than 5% of the strategic objects on the Eastern flank.

波兰捐赠的 300 辆坦克几乎全部被毁,所以现在已经没有坦克了。尽管如此,政府仍在推动直接参与东线作战。北约的防空力量只能保卫东线不到 5%的战略目标。


Markojuric
9小时前
Otto von Bismarck made it clear that if there was to be peace in Europe, there had to be a good deal with Russia. While Germany had good relations with Russia, there was always peace on the continent.

奥托-冯-俾斯麦明确表示,如果想要欧洲和平,就必须与俄罗斯达成良好的协议。当德国与俄罗斯保持良好关系时,欧洲大陆始终保持着和平。


Emmanuelsello
9小时前
At first I thought Putin only wants to force NATO to recognize the security needs of Russia.But now I see this has become an existential fight, which will probably end with the destruction of NATO. Reason being NATO is like the Black Knight in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie: it’s only a flesh wound……

起初我以为普京只是想迫使北约承认俄罗斯的安全需求。但现在我发现这已成为一场生存之战,很可能以北约的毁灭而告终。原因是北约就像《巨蟒与圣杯》电影中的黑骑士:它只是一个肉体上的伤口......
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|网站地图|渝公网安备 50019002502186号|音飞网 ( 渝ICP备2022004218号-1 )

GMT+8, 2024-7-14 15:09 , Processed in 0.081334 second(s), 33 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

Copyright © 2001-2023, Tencent Cloud.