Benson Wang

这种救援行动，并且可以说是不惜一切代价也永远不放弃任何一名军人的力量，美军这次展现无疑，好莱坞电影诚不我欺。 这也是我们熟悉的那个美国。 不过很多川粉是不是搞错了？这是美军的力量，是多年来的救援流程设计以及平时的训练有素，跟川普有半毛钱关系吗？ 吹美军，一点问题都没有。 吹这个昏庸无能的的胖老头，是对美军的侮辱。

Neil White, English writer: Why do the British dislike Donald Trump? First of all, Trump lacks some of the qualities traditionally valued by the British. For example, he has no class, no charm, no composure, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity. We like to laugh, and although Trump can be funny, he has never said anything witty or even mildly amusing—not once, ever. This particularly bothers the British—for us, the absence of humor is almost the same as the absence of humanity. And with Trump, this seems to be the case. He doesn’t even appear to understand what a joke is; his idea of humor is a crude remark, an illiterate insult, or a random act of cruelty. Trump is a troll, and like all trolls, he is never funny and never laughs. His mind is simple—like a bot running on petty prejudices and various nastiness, with no layer of irony, complexity, nuance, or depth. Everything is superficial. Some Americans may see this as a refreshing, progressive simplicity and authenticity. But we, the British, do not. We see it as a lack of inner life, a lack of soul. In Britain, we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are brave underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is the opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich boy or a greedy fat man—he’s more like a bloated white slug, a privileged Jabba the Hutt. He breaks all the rules of basic decency associated with the Marquess of Queensberry—he hits below the belt, something a gentleman would never do. He especially likes to strike the vulnerable or voiceless—and kicks them when they are down. His flaws are hard to miss, and the fact that at least one-third of Americans fail to notice them is shocking to the British. It is impossible to read any of his tweets or hear him speak even a couple of sentences without peering into an abyss. In fact, if Frankenstein had decided to create a monster made entirely of human flaws—he would have created Trump. “A man without a sense of humor is almost crippled to me,” — Pierre Richard.

复活节奇迹：美国大兵瑞恩，回家了！三个月，三场军事行动，三个战争奇迹！一月，一个小时活捉马杜罗，二月，15分钟，斩首团灭哈梅内伊家族。四月，48小时深入敌后200公里，在伊朗的崇山峻岭和万人阵中，成功营救两名突跳伞飞行员。 美国，碾压第二名50年，美军，甩出第二名一百年…

100,000 American troops in Europe = a free ride for Europeans? Let's check the facts. 🔹 American military bases are not free Germany, Italy, Spain, and Romania pay for the infrastructure, land, utilities, and civilian personnel of US bases. Germany alone contributes over $1 billion annually to support the American military presence on its soil. 🔹 Europe is the largest customer of the American defense industry F-35s, Patriot missiles, HIMARS, Apaches — all purchased by Europeans with real money. Every security alarm in Europe translates into contracts for Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. 🔹 American bases in Europe don't only protect Europe Ramstein in Germany coordinates operations across Africa and the Middle East. Sigonella in Italy covers the Mediterranean and North Africa. Romania secures the eastern flank and the Black Sea. These are global American strategic assets — not neighborhood security for Europeans. 🔹 Command is American, not European NATO is always led by an American Supreme Commander (SACEUR). Europe contributes troops, bases, and money — but America holds the controls. Those who control the structure are not the ones getting a free ride. 🔹 The nuclear umbrella is not altruism American nuclear deterrence in Europe keeps the dollar as the world's reserve currency, keeps European markets open to US corporations, and legitimizes American hegemony against Russia and China. But what would actually happen if America withdrew its troops from Europe? 🔹 For America — immediate strategic losses Without bases in Europe, American response time to any crisis in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East grows from hours to days. Ramstein, Sigonella, and Incirlik cannot be replaced by aircraft carriers. Infrastructure built over decades disappears overnight. 🔹 The American defense industry loses its biggest customer A Europe without the US umbrella will build its own defense industry — and fast. Airbus Military, KNDS, Leonardo, and Rheinmetall will take the contracts that Lockheed and Raytheon currently win. Billions of dollars shift from America to Europe. 🔹 The dollar weakens Dollar hegemony is partly sustained by American global military credibility. A withdrawal from Europe signals to the world that America no longer guarantees the postwar order. Alternatives — the euro, the yuan — become more attractive as global reserve options. 🔹 Russia wins without firing a single shot Not necessarily through immediate invasion — but through political influence, energy pressure, and the gradual destabilization of countries on the eastern frontier. The Baltic states, Poland, and Romania enter a security grey zone that no one can guarantee quickly. 🔹 China watches and draws conclusions about Taiwan A precedent of withdrawal from Europe sends a direct signal to Beijing: American commitments are negotiable. The cost of deterrence in the Pacific rises exponentially. Withdrawal is not isolationism. It is strategic abdication. America would not be leaving Europe because it no longer has interests there. It would be leaving while ignoring that those very interests are what make it a superpower. The "free ride" narrative doesn't describe Europe. It describes exactly what America has in Europe.