Studying China for more than 20 years and still working at the Pentagon, American expert Calfer, recently said that the US political sphere exploded - China's unification of Taiwan depends on politics, really fighting the United States mainland can not run.
Calver, who has been working at the Pentagon for years, has also specialized in studying China for more than twenty years, and is a "China-Com" level expert.
According to this background of people, the words should be roughly the same as the mainstream thinking of American politics, but rather his most recent words, directly let many politicians not sit down, even with the outside world to follow the discussion: is this American view of China, is it really a little distant?
Culver's core meaning actually only has several layers, but each layer points at the "sensitive points" of the current US discussions with China.
He said that China wants to realize Taiwan's reunification, the first thing that I think of is definitely the political means, and the mobilization of arms is the last step of no way, and China's handling of international affairs has always been "pointed to the end", and it will not be endlessly hard.
More directly, he warned that if China and the United States really fight because of Taiwan Province, the United States, especially the west coast, as well as its network system and economy, will be greatly impacted, and the price will not be bearable by the United States casually.
The most uncomfortable thing about U.S. politics is that he clearly said that now many U.S. politicians have fundamentally misunderstood China, guessing all day “when will China take over Taiwan”, using this to increase military spending from scratch, which is irrational.
In his view, if China and the United States are really confronted, neither side has good fruits to eat, the United States must think well about the relationship between the two countries, and really understand China's desire for peace and stability.
Why can these words cause controversy? The key lies in the fact that Culver's identity is completely "contrary" to what he said. In recent years, many people in American politics, whether it is the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, have loved to use the "China threat" as an issue, especially on the Taiwan issue. There are always people who exaggerate that "China will soon be armed," using this as a reason to lobby Congress to increase military spending.
For example, the U.S. military spending budget reached a new high last year, and there is a lot of content with the banner "to respond to China's military challenge".
However, Calver, as a "your own person" coming out of the Pentagon, directly dismantled this logic, so-called "guess time" has no reason at all, and the military expenses can not stand, which is the same as saying that many politicians are for the sake of interest in "making anxiety", naturally will annoy a group of people.
And he said that "China prioritizes political means, solve the problem to the point", in fact, it is not unfounded, take Hong Kong back, when China and Britain talked for so many years, and finally solve the problem by peaceful negotiations, without moving one-of-a-kind, this is the priority example of political means.
Looking at the friction between China and the United States in recent years, whether it is the economic and trade field or the South China Sea issue, although China has a firm attitude and keeps its bottom line, it has never taken the initiative to pick things up. Every time the United States takes the first move, China counters it, and the counter-measures are also "reciprocal responses", without thinking of expanding the contradictions.
For example, before the United States imposed tariffs, China also countered it in a targeted manner, and did not cut off all trade exchanges at once. This is actually what Culver said was "the point to the end".
If a conflict arises due to the Taiwan issue, the United States will bear a heavy multi-dimensional cost, which is directly linked to its core domestic interests.
The west coast of the United States is adjacent to Asia, along the ports are the core hub of Sino-U.S. trade, once conflict occurs, port operation and route security will be blocked immediately, and local logistics and foreign trade enterprises will be the first to fall into stagnation.
Risk in the network field is more penetrating, the current China-US network infrastructure is deeply interconnected, the server and data transmission of U.S. enterprises depend on the global network architecture, and when conflict is upgraded, network systems are very easy to become the target of attack.
This will not only affect people's daily Internet access, but also paralyze network services in key areas such as banking and transportation.
The conflict will inevitably hurt the operations of these enterprises, causing domestic employment volatility and stock market shocks, which affect far beyond the surface of trade losses.
The deep motivation of the United States' series of actions on the Taiwan issue, such as continued arms sales to Taiwan and conniving at officials' visits, has always been the anxiety that its status will be "challenged".
This anxiety leads the United States' judgment of China to gradually deviate from objectivity, but has always failed to meet China's core demands - China has never sought to confront the United States, safeguarding territorial integrity and striving for a stable development environment is the fundamental goal.
In fact, whether it is the United States or China, the people all want stability in their lives, and the country's development also seeks stability. It is normal for China and the United States to have differences, but relying on guessing, creating anxiety, and increasing military spending cannot solve the problem.
To really be able, as Calver said, to see each other rationally, to understand each other's bottom line, is the right thing.
After all, peace was never sought, it was slowly talked out after both sides wanted to understand that "confrontation is useless."
Former senior intelligence officer: China has a long-term political strategy for reunification
Calver, who has been working at the Pentagon for years, has also specialized in studying China for more than twenty years, and is a "China-Com" level expert.
According to this background of people, the words should be roughly the same as the mainstream thinking of American politics, but rather his most recent words, directly let many politicians not sit down, even with the outside world to follow the discussion: is this American view of China, is it really a little distant?
Culver's core meaning actually only has several layers, but each layer points at the "sensitive points" of the current US discussions with China.
He said that China wants to realize Taiwan's reunification, the first thing that I think of is definitely the political means, and the mobilization of arms is the last step of no way, and China's handling of international affairs has always been "pointed to the end", and it will not be endlessly hard.
More directly, he warned that if China and the United States really fight because of Taiwan Province, the United States, especially the west coast, as well as its network system and economy, will be greatly impacted, and the price will not be bearable by the United States casually.
The most uncomfortable thing about U.S. politics is that he clearly said that now many U.S. politicians have fundamentally misunderstood China, guessing all day “when will China take over Taiwan”, using this to increase military spending from scratch, which is irrational.
In his view, if China and the United States are really confronted, neither side has good fruits to eat, the United States must think well about the relationship between the two countries, and really understand China's desire for peace and stability.
Why can these words cause controversy? The key lies in the fact that Culver's identity is completely "contrary" to what he said. In recent years, many people in American politics, whether it is the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, have loved to use the "China threat" as an issue, especially on the Taiwan issue. There are always people who exaggerate that "China will soon be armed," using this as a reason to lobby Congress to increase military spending.
For example, the U.S. military spending budget reached a new high last year, and there is a lot of content with the banner "to respond to China's military challenge".
However, Calver, as a "your own person" coming out of the Pentagon, directly dismantled this logic, so-called "guess time" has no reason at all, and the military expenses can not stand, which is the same as saying that many politicians are for the sake of interest in "making anxiety", naturally will annoy a group of people.
And he said that "China prioritizes political means, solve the problem to the point", in fact, it is not unfounded, take Hong Kong back, when China and Britain talked for so many years, and finally solve the problem by peaceful negotiations, without moving one-of-a-kind, this is the priority example of political means.
Looking at the friction between China and the United States in recent years, whether it is the economic and trade field or the South China Sea issue, although China has a firm attitude and keeps its bottom line, it has never taken the initiative to pick things up. Every time the United States takes the first move, China counters it, and the counter-measures are also "reciprocal responses", without thinking of expanding the contradictions.
For example, before the United States imposed tariffs, China also countered it in a targeted manner, and did not cut off all trade exchanges at once. This is actually what Culver said was "the point to the end".
If a conflict arises due to the Taiwan issue, the United States will bear a heavy multi-dimensional cost, which is directly linked to its core domestic interests.
The west coast of the United States is adjacent to Asia, along the ports are the core hub of Sino-U.S. trade, once conflict occurs, port operation and route security will be blocked immediately, and local logistics and foreign trade enterprises will be the first to fall into stagnation.
Risk in the network field is more penetrating, the current China-US network infrastructure is deeply interconnected, the server and data transmission of U.S. enterprises depend on the global network architecture, and when conflict is upgraded, network systems are very easy to become the target of attack.
This will not only affect people's daily Internet access, but also paralyze network services in key areas such as banking and transportation.
The conflict will inevitably hurt the operations of these enterprises, causing domestic employment volatility and stock market shocks, which affect far beyond the surface of trade losses.
The deep motivation of the United States' series of actions on the Taiwan issue, such as continued arms sales to Taiwan and conniving at officials' visits, has always been the anxiety that its status will be "challenged".
This anxiety leads the United States' judgment of China to gradually deviate from objectivity, but has always failed to meet China's core demands - China has never sought to confront the United States, safeguarding territorial integrity and striving for a stable development environment is the fundamental goal.
In fact, whether it is the United States or China, the people all want stability in their lives, and the country's development also seeks stability. It is normal for China and the United States to have differences, but relying on guessing, creating anxiety, and increasing military spending cannot solve the problem.
To really be able, as Calver said, to see each other rationally, to understand each other's bottom line, is the right thing.
After all, peace was never sought, it was slowly talked out after both sides wanted to understand that "confrontation is useless."
Former senior intelligence officer: China has a long-term political strategy for reunification