http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2018-04-13/doc-ifyzeyqc5333529.shtml
俄媒称中国研究俄在叙军事行动：用很小代价令美惨败
俄媒称中国研究俄在叙军事行动：用很小代价令美惨败
0
俄罗斯在叙利亚的赫梅米姆空军基地。
俄罗斯军事观察网4月11日报道称，在当今世界复杂的政治形势下，中国努力保持冷静，与冲突各方保持距离。这符合中国的传统——走中庸之道、中立、冷静。但中国的这种“政治道家哲学”只是表象。事实上，北京密切关注欧洲和中东动荡的政治事件，包括发生在乌克兰和叙利亚的武装冲突。中国对俄罗斯在叙利亚冲突中采取的行动尤为感兴趣。中国尽管实力强大，却并没有干预叙利亚内战。但这并不意味着中国不会对俄罗斯或美国军队在叙利亚的行动表现出兴趣。北京仔细观察俄罗斯在叙利亚的行动，而华盛顿仔细观察北京的反应。
美国海军军事学院教授莱尔·戈德斯坦非常重视研究中国对俄在叙行动的反应。他认为，分析中国对叙利亚冲突的态度具有重要意义——中国在竞逐超级大国的地位，在叙利亚冲突一事上保持中立并不意味着中国的政策不会影响事态的进一步发展。他注意到中国对俄罗斯在叙利亚的行动越来越感兴趣。
中国研究人员强调了俄在叙行动的几项主要成果。首先，由于俄罗斯空天军、特种部队和叙利亚政府军的积极行动，“伊斯兰国”恐怖组织几乎被彻底消灭。多年来一直威胁中东的最大恐怖组织实际上在叙利亚被摧毁。对中国而言，这是如何在境外肃清恐怖组织的宝贵经验。甚至可以说俄罗斯部分减轻了中国的反恐任务。
其次，俄罗斯参与叙利亚内战引发了全球政治的大规模变动。俄罗斯能够在与西方的对抗中掌握主动权，这招致美国和北约的激烈反应。华盛顿和布鲁塞尔以一批又一批的新制裁措施反击俄罗斯，但莫斯科实际上打碎了美国推翻巴沙尔·阿萨德的计划。
对美国来说，这是在军事-政治计划上一败涂地。
俄罗斯已经做了很多工作来确保在叙利亚的行动不会产生“新的阿富汗”。俄罗斯社会对此很担忧，但俄领导层做出了正确的决定——在叙利亚作战的是能拿可观酬劳的、有意识地决定参加战争的专业人员。俄罗斯军队接收了一批经过战争历练、具备实战经验的专家，并且他们擅长在俄罗斯不熟悉的条件下作战。
还有一点是使用新的作战方法和新武器。俄军在叙利亚积极使用无人机和电子侦察设备，以尽量减少俄军伤亡，给恐怖组织造成尽可能大的损失。鉴于俄军在叙利亚已经待了不止一年，能看出作战效率很高，且相对于如此艰巨的条件来说人员伤亡很小。
戈德斯坦在分析中国研究人员的报告时，当然是站在华盛顿的政治立场上批评它，认为中国学者对俄罗斯在叙利亚和整个世界的行动评价过于乐观。戈德斯坦称，中国对俄罗斯的经验感兴趣恰恰是因为中国将在境外采取积极行动。在这方面，北京很希望能了解邻国俄罗斯的经验。
值得注意的是，戈德斯坦在分析中国对俄在叙利亚行动的兴趣时，得出了一个“天才”的结论——他说，在远离本土的境外作战可能让中国面临诸多风险。不知为何，戈德斯坦认为，对于美国、英国或法国来说，不存在这样的风险，而且认为美国、英国或法国军队进入叙利亚和伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亚、马里和索马里并非不道德之举。也就是说，我们遇到了西方世界观模式的一个典型例证——华盛顿或伦敦能做的，莫斯科或北京不能做。但在不再是单极的当今世界里，这种模式彻底失败。而失败的证据之一就是俄罗斯在叙利亚成功实施了军事行动。
五角大楼的理论家是时候习惯这些变化了，他们还要明白：中国和俄罗斯不会再听从疯狂坚持殖民主义时代制度残余的美英“伙伴”的虚伪建议。
Russian media claimed that China studied Russia’s military operations in Syria: the United States lost money with a small price
Russian media claimed that China studied Russia’s military operations in Syria: the United States lost money with a small price
0
Russia's Hemmem Air Force Base in Syria.
The Russian military observer website reported on April 11 that under the complex political situation in the world today, China has worked hard to stay calm and keep a distance from all parties to the conflict. This is in line with China's traditions - taking the middle ground, neutrality, and calmness. However, this kind of "political Taoist philosophy" in China is only a representation. In fact, Beijing has closely followed the turbulent political events in Europe and the Middle East, including the armed conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. China is particularly interested in Russia’s actions in the Syrian conflict. Despite its strength, China did not interfere in the Syrian civil war. However, this does not mean that China will not show any interest in the actions of Russian or U.S. troops in Syria. Beijing carefully observed Russia’s actions in Syria, and Washington carefully observed Beijing’s response.
Professor Laier Goldstein, professor of the US Naval Academy of Military Affairs, attached great importance to the study of China’s reaction to Russia’s actions in Syria. He believes that an analysis of China’s attitude toward the Syrian conflict is of great significance. China’s status in competing for superpowers and maintaining neutrality in the Syrian conflict do not mean that China’s policies will not affect the further development of the situation. He noted that China is becoming more and more interested in Russia’s actions in Syria.
Chinese researchers emphasized several major achievements of Russia’s actions in Syria. First, because of the active actions of the Russian Air Force, special forces, and Syrian government forces, the "Islamic State" terrorist organization was almost completely eliminated. The largest terrorist organization that has been threatening the Middle East for many years was actually destroyed in Syria. For China, this is how to remove the valuable experience of terrorist organizations from abroad. It can even be said that Russia has partially eased China’s counter-terrorism mission.
Second, Russia's participation in the civil war in Syria has triggered large-scale changes in global politics. Russia is able to take the initiative in the confrontation with the West. This incurs a fierce reaction from the United States and NATO. Washington and Brussels countered Russia with new batches of new sanctions, but Moscow actually broke the US plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. For the United States, this was a complete defeat in the military-political plan.
Russia has done a lot of work to ensure that the actions in Syria will not generate "new Afghanistan." Russian society is very worried about this, but the Russian leadership has made the right decision. It is a professional who can fight in Syria and can consciously decide to participate in the war. The Russian army has received a group of experts who have experienced war experience and practical experience, and they are good at fighting under unfamiliar Russian conditions.
Another point is the use of new methods of combat and new weapons. The Russian military actively used drones and electronic reconnaissance equipment in Syria to minimize Russian casualties and cause as much damage to terrorist organizations as possible. Given that the Russian military has been in Syria for more than one year, it can be seen that combat effectiveness is high and the casualties are so small relative to such difficult conditions.
When Goldstein analyzed the reports of Chinese researchers, he certainly stood by Washington’s political position and criticized it, believing that Chinese scholars were too optimistic about Russia’s actions in Syria and the entire world. Goldstein said that China’s interest in Russia’s experience is precisely because China will take active actions abroad. In this regard, Beijing very much hopes to learn about the experience of neighboring Russia.
It is worth noting that when Goldstein analyzed China’s interest in Russia’s actions in Syria, he came to the conclusion that he was “genius”—he said that fighting outside China’s territory could expose China to many risks. For some reason, Goldstein believes that there is no such risk for the United States, Britain, or France, and that it is not an immoral move for the United States, Britain, or French troops to enter Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and Somalia. In other words, we have encountered a typical example of the Western worldview model - Washington or London can do, Moscow or Beijing can not do. But in today's world, which is no longer unipolar, this model has completely failed. One of the evidences of failure is that Russia has successfully implemented military operations in Syria.
It is time for the Pentagon theoretician to become accustomed to these changes. They must also understand that China and Russia will no longer listen to the hypocritical suggestion of the United States and Britain's “partners” who frantically persisted in the colonial era.
