华为、中国那样最让美国愤怒?

发发牢骚,解解闷,消消愁
打印 被阅读次数
美国最痛恨中国那种“回到历史上应有的地位”的说法和态度,回到应有的地位,根本不是中国回归,而是美国失去第一地位。
 
这种心态是正常的。像我这种乡巴佬,几十年前还不是老的一塌糊涂时当个小组长,被调个位置都难受,更别说是头头被撤了。
 
美国历史上有反思“为什么失去...”的习惯,如1949年共产党在中国上台,美国就有“谁应对失去中国负责(Who lost China)”的说法,华为现在成为了美国的主要威胁,我在开放市场是责任引用美中关系专家艾利森(雷厄姆·艾利森Graham Allison)的说法:“The very idea that a Chinese company could displace the U.S. as No. 1 in any significant arena [China's Huawei in 5G], and most of all in a next-generation technology, is for most Americans an assault on who we are”,大家也开始反思。
 
更让美国恼羞成怒的是,两年前华为还影子都没有,虽然一年前美国开始警惕(封死华为在美国的市场),现在不仅突然冒出来成了竞争对手,还成了威胁,不仅是个威胁,还是个封不死的威胁。封不死,对美国来说是不能接受的,
 
大家一直知道华为是个出色的企业,是中国的佼佼者,但也许中国也没预料到其成就,美国就更不用说了,《外交政策》一文捕获这一心情
 
The Improbable Rise of Huawei(见下)
How did a private Chinese firm come to dominate the world’s most important emerging technology?
 
光靠狼性文化是不够的。
 
如果美国早早就开始封死华为,是可能的,不过就像封死中国一样,现在都是马后炮(hindsight),所以在我看来,这是机缘,也就是运气。
 
中国有可能改革成功,有可能失败;中国有可能接受西方价值(不是全盘,但接受基本的,有条件的本开放、自由、权力;小概率),也可能不接受(大概率)。同样,华为有可能成功,有可能失败。所以那种以为能早早预料到将来而将中国、华为扼杀于摇篮之中的想法是不现实的,而且那思维太可怕了,他人在美国体制下还有希望吗?退一步,如果你心态放宽,中国、华为给世界增加了财富、机会,也不是一无是处。
 
美国公开反对中国、华为的理由,是不遵守市场规则。
 
华为的军方背景,一直是莫须有的罪名,不过老大给人罪名,被告得自己申述无罪。中国政府的支持,肯定有,我觉得这不是个不当的,中国初期太落后,华为基础太差,不过那不是个大头。关键的,是国内巨大的市场,在当时中国缺乏技术的背景下,华为国产肯定占有市场优势,政府在背后顶了一把也可以理解。西方企业间接直接受政府扶持的比比皆是,动用国家力量给自己的企业在国外造势,世界上没有政府不这么做的,看看美英法的军工。
 
所以光是有点有违市场规则,也还不是问题,问题是搞出了成果,威胁了美国。表达这种愤怒最直接的,是美国国防部属下“国防创新小组”(DEFENSE INNOVATION BOARD)的报告:THE 5G ECOSYSTEM: RISKS & OPPORTUNITIES FOR DoD。这是个解读:
 
We could lose the 5G race to China, warns US Department of Defense
"China has taken the lead in 5G development," warns new report - and the US is worried about allies using Chinese 5G networks
Not only is China is thought to have around 350,000 5G-operable base stations deployed – nearly ten times as many as are deployed across the US – the report says that China is in a good position to promote its 5G technology around the world
 
华为的业务是垂直水平的都有:不仅仅是手机,还有5G商用和民用产品;全套方案:手机、基站、网络设备和整套通讯系统的建设。更可气的,是中国政府的计划还跟华为的计划串成一气,一带一路把公私利益连接在一起。
 
美国考虑的“后华为时代”:
 
《华邮》U.S. officials planning for a future in which Huawei has a major share of 5G global networks
 
 
【后记】
大家有意见,我负负责,翻译一下下文的一个故事(掺乎些自己的话)。
 
华为决定做4G手机的时候,啥都没有,从元件到产权都得买,这一来,引致爱立信和诺基亚做了一个战略性错误:在4G技术集中全力研发,让华为没有喘息的余地。这一来,两个公司对5G就有心无力。这时华为的狼文化就显力了:不顾利润同时开发5G。等到大家清醒过来,华为已经把两者摔在后面(爱立信诺基亚目前还是强有力的竞争对手)。
 
这是华为的机缘之一。
 
【相关】
也许华为......
华为那些趣事
没有华为中兴,那来非洲无线革命
 
 
【附录】
The Improbable Rise of Huawei
How did a private Chinese firm come to dominate the world’s most important emerging technology?

BY KEITH JOHNSON, ELIAS GROLL
APRIL 3, 2019, 1:00 PM

A decade ago, in 2009, the Swedish phone giant Teliasonera set out to build one of the world’s first fourth-generation wireless networks in some of Scandinavia’s most important—and technologically savviest—cities. For Oslo, Norway, Teliasonera made an audacious and unexpected choice of who would build it: Huawei, a Chinese company with little presence outside China and some other developing markets.

The same year, Huawei landed an even bigger and more unexpected contract to completely rebuild and replace Norway’s mobile phone network, which had first been built by the global standard-bearers: Ericsson of Sweden and Nokia of Finland. The Chinese upstart eventually completed the world’s most ambitious network swap ahead of schedule and under budget.

To many in the wireless industry, it was a coming-of-age moment for Huawei, and for China. Huawei was no longer just another Chinese catch-up clawing out market share thanks to cut-rate pricing or thriving on stolen intellectual property. Suddenly it had cutting-edge technology of its own and was elbowing aside established European giants like Ericsson and Nokia in their own backyard.

“For the first time, people realized Huawei was not just the cheap option but could compete on quality and price,” said Dexter Thillien, a telecommunications analyst at Fitch Solutions.

Fast-forward to now. In less than a decade, allegedly thanks in part to billions of dollars in support from the Chinese government, the privately held Huawei has become the world’s largest telecom equipment company, last year posting more than $107 billion in revenue from operations in some 170 countries.

More important, Huawei has, by most accounts, taken the lead in the race to develop one of the modern world’s most important technologies: fifth-generation mobile telephony. Unlike its various predecessors, which simply offered consumers the ability to send texts, then to surf the web on their phones, and finally to stream video, 5G promises to revolutionize the entire global economy.

And for perhaps the first time in China’s modern history, Huawei’s growing market share and technological prowess are putting a champion of the Chinese government in a position to dominate a next-generation technology. 5G will offer hugely faster data speeds than today’s mobile technology, which is important for consumers. But 5G will also be the technology that ensures artificial intelligence functions seamlessly, that driverless cars don’t crash, that machines in automated factories can communicate flawlessly in real time around the world, and that nearly every device on earth will be wired together.

5G will be, simply put, the central nervous system of the 21st-century economy.5G will be, simply put, the central nervous system of the 21st-century economy—and if Huawei continues its rise, then Beijing, not Washington, could be best placed to dominate it.

Huawei’s startling ability to gatecrash what has been until now an exclusive bastion of the developed world has sent shock waves not only through the industry but also through Western capitals. Its success has turned Huawei into a target for the U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration—which is warning that the company’s growing role in global telecommunications networks could enable Beijing to use its control of the world’s digital plumbing to spy on rival nations or steal their commercial secrets.

“5G is turning more into a geopolitical battleground between the United States and China,” said Tim Ruhlig of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, who researches 5G technologies.

And that raises a key question that remains unanswered: Who is Huawei really working for? While it prides itself on being a private company, Huawei was founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei, a veteran of the People’s Liberation Army’s engineering corps, and the Chinese army was an early and crucial customer for the fledgling firm.

Late last month, a critical report by Britain’s 5G watchdog also raised fears that Huawei might prove to be a high-tech Trojan horse. The report concluded that “underlying defects” left the company’s software and cybersecurity systems open to hackers, posing “significant” security issues. Even so, the report mainly blamed sloppy engineering and found no evidence that the vulnerabilities had been introduced at the direction of Chinese authorities; it also stopped short of proposing an outright ban.

Indeed the Trump administration—which has more often than not managed to alienate its longtime allies—is already faltering in its global campaign to isolate Huawei. While a few U.S. allies, such as Australia and Japan, have followed Washington’s lead and already banned Huawei technology, many others are still considering it. The United Kingdom, like Germany, is still weighing the geopolitical implications of purchasing Huawei equipment. Others such as Thailand and South Korea are pressing ahead and letting Huawei launch 5G projects. India, which the United States hopes to use as a counterweight to China, is resisting American calls to exclude Huawei from its networks.

And behind all these fresh worries over Huawei’s seemingly sudden dominance is a simpler question: How did a modest, private Chinese firm that started out three decades ago importing basic telecoms equipment emerge as the arbiter of what is arguably one of the world’s most important technologies?

There’s no single explanation that accounts for Huawei’s success or recent technical prowess. A cost advantage helped, of course. So did state backing, government protection from foreign competitors, and a huge local market, which led to massive and swiftly multiplying revenues. And it could hardly have been mere coincidence that Huawei’s founder, Ren, was a PLA veteran, and Huawei’s first customer proved to be the People’s Liberation Army.

In the end, however, Huawei’s meteoric rise was the result of a broad mix of different policies and decisions—helped along by a few missteps from its Western rivals.

One theme is clear: Throughout its history, Huawei appears to have benefited from state support not available to the company’s Western rivals, though the exact nature of that aid is difficult to quantify, as is the broader relationship of any private Chinese firm to the government.

Because the company is privately held through a complex employee ownership scheme, it doesn’t have the obligation to publish detailed financial reports as publicly listed firms do. But European investigators have found evidence that Huawei may have received a massive $30 billion line of credit from the China Development Bank, among other well-timed financing.

“State-backed finance was crucial in Huawei’s growth.” “State-backed finance was crucial in Huawei’s growth,” said Matthew Schrader, a China analyst at the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund. It helped Huawei sew up the domestic market, which in turn enabled it to expand overseas by offering deep discounts.

Huawei denies receiving direct state aid. Nonetheless, Ren has been upfront about the importance of Chinese industrial policy as key to the company’s growth. Without Beijing’s policy of protecting Chinese companies from aggressive foreign competition at home, “Huawei would no longer exist,” Ren has said.

Huawei’s rise might thus be seen as the latest test in the struggle between two forms of capitalism: open, privatized Western markets versus state-assisted, Chinese-style ones, though this time with an ideological twist, as Huawei is not officially a state company.

Whatever the Chinese government’s role, Huawei was clearly shaped by Ren’s personal vision and ambition. After leaving the army at the age of 39 and working for a state-owned company, Shenzhen Electronics Corp., for four years, Ren secured an $8.5 million loan from a state bank and started Huawei on his own with 14 staffers, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported in a 2000 profile of the company.

He began as an importer of telecommunications switches, a basic networking technology. In 1990, the company started work on its first switch—but rather than partner with a foreign company, which was standard practice in the Chinese telecommunications industry at the time, Ren made massive investments in his company’s research and development wing to build his own products. In the early 1990s, the company is reported to have had 500 research and development staff and 200 working in production—a lopsided ratio—according to an examination of the company’s business history by the analyst Nathaniel Ahrens.

By 1993, the company released the new switch and picked up the army as a client, providing it with its own telecom network. That contract gave the company an important boost over its rivals, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review. A year later, Ren managed to secure another form of protection from the state. He met with Jiang Zemin, the Communist Party general secretary, and told him that a country without a domestic telecoms switch industry was like a country without a military. “Well said,” Jiang replied, according to Ren’s account of the meeting.

By 1996, under Ren’s prodding, the Chinese government shifted its industrial policy to favor domestic telecommunications companies, keeping foreign competitors out.

In subsequent years, a freed-up Huawei embarked on a ruthless campaign of domestic expansion, signing up local government clients, often in rural areas. The company sold its technology at rock-bottom prices to eliminate its rivals and sometimes even offered its services to government entities for free. By 1998, the company had matched the market share of its principal rival, Shanghai Bell, a foreign joint venture.

Throughout its rise to domestic dominance, Huawei has also thrived in international markets by offering its products at a significant discount compared to its competitors. Access to a huge pool of engineering talent willing to work for lower wages than Huawei’s Western competitors translates into discounts of up to 20 percent for customers. Today, Huawei controls 29 percent of the global telecom equipment market. In the Asia-Pacific region that figure is 43 percent, and in Latin America it’s 34 percent, according to figures provided by the Dell’Oro Group, a market research firm.

And while Huawei’s history has been marred by several cases of technology theft—such as an infamous instance in the early 2000s of stealing Cisco code for router software—experts credit Ren with building Huawei into a research and development powerhouse from the company’s first days.

“I think a lot of their technical expertise as of late is because they have a lot of smart people,” said Mike Thelander, an industry analyst and the founder of the Signals Research Group. “You can say a lot of bad things about Huawei, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Today, Ren says that being a privately held company gives Huawei the freedom to plow more money back into R&D—some $15 billion to $20 billion per year. Some 80,000 people, or nearly half Huawei’s workforce, are dedicated to research and development; tens of thousands alone work at Huawei’s huge corporate campus in Shenzhen.

And in its focus on turning research into marketable products, Huawei compares favorably to Cisco and Google, said Henning Schulzrinne, the former chief technologist at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. The company’s research organization “is well integrated into the development process,” allowing Huawei to quickly turn research findings into sales, Schulzrinne said.

Huawei is also vertically integrated. Unlike its principal competitors, Sweden’s Ericsson and Finland’s Nokia, Huawei designs nearly every component of 5G technology, including the defining technology of the internet economy: the smartphone. The company is the second-largest maker of smartphones in the world, behind South Korea’s Samsung. By designing chipsets and the handsets they talk to, experts argue, Huawei may have an edge in getting 5G products to market more quickly.

When 3G and 4G networks were being built, Huawei was playing catch-up to its established rivals, licensing much of their technology. To some extent, that lured Ericsson and Nokia, which today are Huawei’s main rivals in the race to develop 5G, into a state of complacency, said Thillien of Fitch Solutions. They had invested a lot of money into what were then cutting-edge technologies and sought to squeeze the most they could out of them rather than racing ahead to the next stage, making their own developments obsolete. At the same time, they felt they had little to fear from what was then regarded as a nonthreatening Chinese firm.

Now, the situation is reversed. Huawei has more 5G-related patents than any other firm, according to IPlytics, a German-based company that tracks intellectual property development. That means other companies will have to pay Huawei to use key bits of 5G technology.

Partly as a result of that technological arsenal, Huawei has been able to shape the rules of the road for 5G in a way it never could with earlier mobile technologies. Over the past few years, telecoms engineers have regularly gathered every few months to hash out the evolving technical standards that will govern all aspects of 5G. And Huawei has simply flooded the zone, sending more engineers to those meetings than any other telecoms company and making more technical contributions to the still-evolving standard than anyone else, IPlytics found.

Along the way, Huawei has notched an ever-growing tally of technical breakthroughs that no other single company has matched. It has field-tested its 5G technology in lower frequencies (good for coverage) and higher frequencies (better for high data speeds). Earlier this year, it debuted its own, in-house-designed chipset and devices that will make 5G a reality. Huawei says it currently has 30 contracts to build 5G networks around the world, with dozens of other countries close to signing on.

With a Chinese company building the network through which huge volumes of data—phone calls, emails, and business transactions—will flow across the globe, U.S. officials fear that infrastructure could be subverted for espionage, allowing Beijing’s intelligence agencies to gather huge volumes of communications.

Even more dire, Washington fears that Beijing will replace it as the world’s premier intelligence power and perhaps even deny it access to the networks that make global commerce and the projection of military power possible. For decades, U.S. intelligence agencies have capitalized on the central role of U.S. companies in global telecommunications networks to spy on adversaries and gather crucial intelligence.

And now, whether by design or luck or some combination of the two, the Chinese Communist Party may have the means to overturn that disadvantage—especially because the United States itself, despite the prominence of Silicon Valley, doesn’t have a national champion of its own developing 5G. Consolidation and mergers in the telecommunications industry have made European, not American, companies the leading Western makers of the boxes, antennas, and beam-generating equipment that will serve as the backbone of 5G technology.

“If you’re the government of China, you have a couple of choices: You can duplicate what the U.S. did and build a multibillion-dollar signals intelligence network, or you can fund Huawei—and that’s a lot cheaper,” said James Lewis, the director of the Technology Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Foreign production of advanced communication networks “will challenge U.S. competitiveness and data security,” and as American data increasingly flows across those networks, that will increase “the risk of foreign access and denial of service,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, warned in his annual assessment of threats facing the United States.

As a result of these fears, Washington has essentially banned Huawei equipment inside the United States. Last December, the Justice Department also ordered the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer and Ren’s daughter, on charges of trying to steal American technology and lying about the company’s business in Iran. She is currently fighting extradition to the United States from Canada.

But Washington may be fighting a losing battle in frantically trying to get its Western allies to swear off Huawei as well. So dominant has Huawei already become in building telecom networks globally and vying to set the world standard for 5G that the Trump administration finds itself somewhat isolated, even among its closest allies.

Despite U.S. pressure, the European Union has opted against barring the Chinese firm, and even close U.S. allies such as Britain and Germany, which are still deciding which companies will participate in building their 5G networks, are unlikely to ban Huawei altogether. The reason is simple: For many European countries that already use Huawei equipment in their 4G networks, it would be costly to switch horses in midstream.

U.S. policymakers have leaned especially hard on Germany, even warning Berlin it could lose access to U.S. intelligence sharing if it includes Huawei in its network.

“Europe is very much a battleground, and Germany is a battleground within the battleground,” said Thillien of Fitch Solutions.

Yet the Trump administration has done a poor job, by most accounts, of convincing European allies of the security risk posed by the company—a problem exacerbated by the president’s constant sniping at his counterparts across the Atlantic. Washington has never publicly presented evidence backing up its assertions that Huawei equipment plays a role in Chinese espionage operations, and there are doubts that it has shared much evidence in private either.

According to Schrader of the German Marshall Fund, if U.S. intelligence officials truly had clear evidence that Huawei was helping China to spy, they would be more “forward leaning” in sharing that information with allies.

With the American campaign faltering, U.S. intelligence officials are already beginning to prepare for a world in which Huawei dominates next-generation telecommunications networks. “We are going to have to figure out a way in a 5G world that we’re able to manage the risks in a diverse network that includes technology that we can’t trust,” said Sue Gordon, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, in remarks last month. “You have to presume a dirty network.”

Huawei executives argue the U.S. allegations are irresponsible, and the company’s founder has said he would defy Chinese law on intelligence gathering to maintain his company’s independence. It is a claim China experts find laughable.

“The bigger a company in China gets, the more it needs to align its business goals with the party’s political goals,” said Schrader. “The mere fact that Huawei is able to publicly take a position so at odds with the actual reality of China speaks to the degree of party support it enjoys. ‘Normal’ businesses in China cannot get away with saying they don’t abide by party dictates.”

To satisfy the demands of law enforcement, telecommunications networks are typically built to enable some type of wiretapping function. Such abilities have in the past been subverted by intelligence agencies to snoop on calls and scoop up data, so using Chinese-designed equipment for such networks practically represents an invitation to Beijing to spy, “since the infrastructure itself is designed to support such meddling,” argued Nicholas Weaver, a senior researcher at the International Computer Science Institute.

In an interview with Foreign Policy, Andy Purdy, Huawei’s chief security officer in the United States, pointed out that U.S. espionage activities documented by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden have created a fundamental attitude of distrust in the telecommunications industry. The Snowden disclosures exposed how American companies were forced to cooperate with U.S. intelligence activities.

“The U.S. fundamentally believes that China would use Chinese companies—even private ones—for the same kinds of things that the U.S. uses American companies for,” Purdy said.

Huawei executives have even begun to taunt Washington over Trump’s warnings that the United States is falling behind in 5G technology. “The U.S. is lagging behind,” Huawei rotating chairman Guo Ping told reporters earlier this year. “His message is clear and correct.”

At the same time, many experts say security fears singling out Huawei equipment are overblown, as nearly all the big telecom equipment makers use Chinese factories to churn out their components.

“The whole Huawei security discussion as it is now is kind of silly and misses the point,” said Ruhlig of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. “It’s fair to assume that China could hack into 5G anyway, whether you have Huawei equipment in place” or that of another manufacturer, he said. “Banning Huawei will not by itself provide additional security.”

That line of thinking has Huawei officials asking Washington to have another look at its technology. “Let’s talk about proven risk mitigation mechanisms so that we can have a chance to do business in the United States,” Purdy said. The U.S. government, however, has yet to respond to that overture.

Experts are also still debating whether Huawei is as dominant as some officials in Washington fear. Some telecoms executives with experience operating Huawei alongside equipment made by other manufacturers say that it has established the lead, especially in the bread-and-butter technology of transmitting large amounts of data through radio networks.

“From a technology point of view, our view is that specifically in [radio access networks] we see Huawei with a big advantage, a couple of years ahead of any other provider,” said one Western executive who operates a major national mobile network.

Others say Huawei’s purported technical lead may be much smaller, and in any event is hard to measure when so many companies are making progress in different pieces of the 5G puzzle. 5G networks are made up of many different technologies, many of which remain in a nascent stage of development. Engineering task forces are still determining the standards—the technical language different devices will use to talk to one another and exchange data. That means determining who is ahead in the market is more art than science.

“What is meant by being ahead?” said Thelander of the Signals Research Group. “I’m not sure how you define being ahead.”

The previous shift in mobile communications technology—from 3G to 4G and beyond—powered the creation of the current app-based technology. Streaming services such as YouTube and Spotify, which deliver high-fidelity content into users’ smartphones, rely on the technology, as do networked car-hailing services such as Uber. But that transition was more an evolution than a revolution; 5G, while building on existing cellular technologies, represents a breakthrough in the amount of data that can be transmitted, and especially its speed and reliability.

These improvements in speed and reliability are required for the kinds of innovations that technology executives tout as the next phase of the internet revolution. For self-driving cars to become a reality, they will require reliable high-bandwidth connections and near-instantaneous data transmission to be able to react to changing road conditions in milliseconds. Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning likewise require huge datasets to function as intended.

And whether Huawei is a year ahead of its peers, or a few months ahead, or roughly at the same level may not be the biggest question. 5G is still being developed, and commercial rollout in a limited fashion won’t begin in earnest until next year; the first true 5G networks, which will deliver all the whiz-bang features the technology promises, probably won’t arrive until 2025 at the earliest.

Huawei’s leading role in shaping the most important new technology standard will likely pay dividends in terms of billions of dollars in license fees and could give the Chinese firm an advantage as countries around the world scramble to build 5G networks.

“Whoever sets the standard is going to grab higher market share,” said Ruhlig of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. That’s already on display in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, where Huawei rules. “In the developing world, China is internationalizing Chinese technology standards,” “In the developing world, China is internationalizing Chinese technology standards.” he said.

Indeed, as countries around the world scramble to start building advanced telecoms networks, and despite the U.S. campaign against the company, Huawei is becoming an even more entrenched player. Asian countries including Malaysia, Vietnam, and U.S. ally Thailand are all considering Huawei for their 5G networks. So are European and NATO allies of the United States such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Hungary, while Germany and the United Kingdom are unlikely to ban it altogether.

For almost 200 years, China has largely been on the receiving end of technology developed elsewhere. Today, it is reasserting, in the most demonstrable way, the technological leadership it enjoyed long ago.

 

 

匡吉 发表评论于
唯利是图的狼性,或者 走自己的路 让别人无路可走 让人讨厌与愤怒
Californian 发表评论于
楼主在叙述美国现在公开反对中国(华为)的同时,还应该客观提及在胡温政府末期美国主流还是以积极心态看待中国崛起(他们有许多预测中国会超过美国)。

华为是当下中国的缩影,过程非常相似。我在几年前对华为印象还是不错的,直到余大嘴的手机部门崛起。看看他们做了些什么:有了进步就夸大,不仅误导消费者,还故意导入爱国反美的情怀(-不买华为是汉奸)。尽管所用技术大部分来自西方,一旦得势(还没有到绝对优势),就得瑟。明明模仿苹果的厉害(连螺丝/包装盒都如此),在批苹果时面不改色。用国内网友一句话形容再贴切不过:”我从未见过如此厚颜无耻之人“。我同情孟晚舟,但绝不会为华为的困境惋惜。

再重复一遍:楼主在叙述美国现在公开反对中国(华为)的同时,还应该客观提及在胡温政府末期美国主流还是以积极心态看待中国崛起(他们有许多预测中国会超过美国)。请化更多时间想一想习上台后什么促使美国朝野对华政策聚变,这种反思比选择性思维和马基维利式的抱怨更能看清问题所在。这种唯利是图的狼性,使我想起一句话:"子系中山狼,得志便猖狂"!

柳师枞 发表评论于
楼主说的没错啊,什么民主啊盗窃啊花纳税人钱啊的,都不是事儿,最根本的根本就是有人要动摇美国的世界霸主地位,这才是最可怕最致命的。先不管这事儿会不会成真,想想五十年前的中国是个什么样子,再看看现在,美国,能不捉急吗。
笨狼 发表评论于
写过几回华为,很少有人搭理,忽然很热闹啊。

回复 '路边的蒲公英' 的评论 :

大家极少关注原文,中文英文都一样。写的是那不敬业的唠叨,而不是把那篇英文抄下来。

回复 ' lio' 的评论 :

赖在这不就是为了给您老逗乐吗?

回复 ' 田间地垄' 的评论 :

也是一种说法。美国特产,叫人人手里有真理。

《纽约时报》Profitable Giants Like Amazon Pay $0 in Corporate Taxes. Some Voters Are Sick of It
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html
田间地垄 发表评论于
华为跟海航有些类似,而目前已经揭露出来了那么多的盗窃行为,就不要再为华为洗地了。西方政府支持某些产业或行业不假,但没有资助这些企业成千上万亿的资金啊!因为他们没有权利这样花纳税人的钱啊,请阁下不要如此地混淆是非!
lio 发表评论于
博客就是自己的菜园,玩玩的。敬业? 为谁服务? 你英语这么差还赖在这里?



路边的蒲公英 发表评论于
这是中文网站,贴大段英文,很不敬业啊!Google翻译成中文,少量校订即可。
登录后才可评论.