。taipeitimes.com/News/front/arc 唉，台灣的朋友、同事（以及領導人）們需要認清現實了。他們需要明白，山姆大叔不會把他們從憤怒的中國龍手中拯救出來。美國人已經厭倦了捲入別人的家庭糾紛，打起「無止盡的戰爭」。他們不太可能為了拯救陷入困境的中華民國而發動戰爭——尤其是在涉及核風險的情況下——而這不可避免地會發生。但如果台灣領導人能夠拋開意識形態，考慮一些既能確保高度自治又能達成妥協的方案，他們還是有選擇的。我將在新書
. taipeitimes.com/News/front/arc
Oh well, friends and colleagues (and leaders) in Taiwan need to get real. They need to understand that Uncle Sam is not going to save them from the angry Chinese dragon.
Americans are sick and tired of fighting "endless wars" by getting stuck in other peoples' family quarrels. They are unlikely to go to war in order to rescue the beleaguered Republic of China -- especially if that involves nuclear risks -- as it inevitably will.
BUT Taiwan's leaders have options if they would put ideology aside and consider some compromises that would still allow substantial autonomy. I discuss the myriad diplomatic options (including for Taipei) that are hardly ever seriously considered in new explainer "Target Taiwan: One China and Cross-Strait Stability." (below).美國軍工複合體主要智庫蘭德公司發表了一篇極其非凡的報告，這再次關鍵性地表明——儘管混亂與喧囂不斷——美國深層政府正從遏制中國轉向接受共存（這正是報告中明確提出的建議）。
以下是報告中三項最重要的建議（報告連結在此：https://rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA4100/RRA4107-1/RAND_RRA4107-1.pdf）：
1. 摒棄美中競爭中「勝利可期」的謬論，承認中國共產黨的合法性：
報告主張美國應「以明確拒絕絕對勝利論述、承認中國共產黨合法性的措辭，釐清競爭中的美國目標」。
他們解釋此舉必要性在於：勝利在客觀上不可能實現（「徹底摧毀對方並非可行選項」），拒絕勝利是現實困境所迫，且持續追求勝利將導致災難性後果（因其將「威脅雙方生存」）。
2. 接受共存
他們寫道：「雙方必須在決策官員中形成深刻且廣泛共識，接受某種程度的共存模式必然是雙邊關係的組成部分。」他們還寫道：「雙方必須接受對方基本的政治合法性。」
3. 關於台灣問題，他們建議不僅要向中國保證其能實現統一目標，更要運用美國對台影響力防止挑釁行為
這可能是報告中最令人意外的觀點。他們建議「美中雙方應交換互惠信號」，其中美國需發表「不支持台灣獨立、不追求海峽永久分裂、不反對和平統一」的聲明。他們主張美國應「為北京創造最大誘因，促使中方採取漸進方式實現最終目標（即統一）」。
更值得注意的是，他們主張美國應「在履行對台承諾的同時，運用影響力確保台灣行動不致加劇與中國的緊張關係」。報告明確批評台灣賴清德聲稱台灣「主權獨立」的言論，並稱華府應運用「對台潛在影響力限制其破壞現狀的活動」——實質上是要求美國施壓台灣避免挑釁中國。
當像蘭德公司這樣的智庫提出如此屈從於戰略競爭者的建議時，絕非出於善意——他們絕非和平主義者。這源於他們深刻意識到：實質性的力量平衡已發生劇烈轉移。
@@@@@@
緊張局勢。此項分析歸納出若干可引導穩定激烈競爭關係的廣泛原則：
1. 雙方決策官員須在深植於心且廣泛認同的前提下，接受某種程度的暫行協議必然是關係組成部分。
2. 雙方均承認對方具備基本政治正當性。
3. 在特定議題領域（尤其雙方存在爭議者），雙方致力建立共同規則、規範、制度及其他工具，以在特定時期（如三至五年）內創造持久穩定的共存狀態。
4. 雙方在發展能力時保持克制，避免以損害對方威懾力與防禦能力的方式，對對方本土構成生存威脅。
5. 雙方接受世界政治組織原則共識願景的核心特徵清單，此清單至少可作為共識現狀的基準線。
V
6. 建立涵蓋長期個人聯繫、實體通訊管道、危機與高風險情境的協議規範及交戰規則等機制與機構，以發揮緩和衝突或恢復穩定平衡的功能。
@@@@@
Absolutely extraordinary paper by RAND, the main think tank of the US military-industrial complex, and another key sign that the U.S. deep state - despite all the chaos and noise - is shifting away from deterring China, towards accepting coexistence (it's literally what they recommend in the paper).
These are the 3 most important recommendations in the paper (which link is here: rand.org/content/dam/ra): 1. Rejecting the false belief that a victory is possible in the China-US rivalry and accepting the legitimacy of the Communist Party: They write that the U.S. should "clarify U.S. objectives in the rivalry with language that explicitly rejects absolute versions of victory and accepts the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party." They explain that it's necessary because victory is objectively impossible ("the effective destruction of the other is not a feasible option"), rejecting it is imposed by hard realities and because continuing to try would be catastrophic (as it would "threaten [either side's] survival"). 2. Accepting coexistence They write that "each side [must] accept, in ways that are deeply ingrained and broadly shared among decision-making officials, that some degree of modus vivendi must necessarily be part of the relationship." They also write that "each side [must] accept the essential political legitimacy of the other." 3. On Taiwan, they recommend not only reassuring China that it can achieve its reunification objective but also using US leverage AGAINST Taiwan to prevent provocations This is probably the most surprising aspect of the paper. They recommend that "the United States and China should exchange a mutual set of signals" where the US would make "statements that it does not support Taiwan independence, seek a permanent separation across the Straits, or oppose peaceful unification." They write that the US should be "creating the maximum incentive for Beijing to pursue gradual approaches to realizing its ultimate goal [i.e. reunification]." More remarkably, they argue the US should "balance its commitments to Taiwan with leveraging its influence to ensure Taiwan's actions do not escalate tensions with China." The paper explicitly criticizes Taiwan's Lai Ching-te for statements asserting Taiwan is "sovereign" and says Washington should use its "potential leverage over Taiwan to limit its activities that upset the status quo" - essentially US leverage to pressure Taiwan into not provoking China. When such a think tank as RAND makes recommendations this deferential to a strategic competitor, it's not out of kindness of heart, they're anything but peaceniks. It's because they realize that the material balance of power has dramatically shifted.
