超级军网所谓俄国中断美军阿富汗补给线可能是假消息
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/02 16:58:14
所谓俄国中断美军阿富汗补给线消息来源是伊朗电视台，不大可靠。消灭塔利班，阿富汗稳定符合俄罗斯的利益，俄国是不会中断补给线的，如果塔利班得势，毒品，恐怖主义也会威胁俄罗斯及中亚各国，对俄国没有好处。中断补给线基本上是伊朗一厢情愿的观点，估计是假消息。还有俄国军方最新声明：俄国航空母舰不会在叙利亚港口停靠，俄罗斯认为也门模式是解决叙利亚问题可借鉴方法之一
所谓俄国中断美军阿富汗补给线消息来源是伊朗电视台，不大可靠。消灭塔利班，阿富汗稳定符合俄罗斯的利益，俄国是不会中断补给线的，如果塔利班得势，毒品，恐怖主义也会威胁俄罗斯及中亚各国，对俄国没有好处。中断补给线基本上是伊朗一厢情愿的观点，估计是假消息。还有俄国军方最新声明：俄国航空母舰不会在叙利亚港口停靠，俄罗斯认为也门模式是解决叙利亚问题可借鉴方法之一
看到上面的帖子了 汗
确实不怎么靠谱
看到上面的帖子了 汗
确实不怎么靠谱
首先 俄国即使想消灭塔利班 也不会希望是美国人消灭
其次 伊朗和塔利班教派不同 互相之间仇恨夜很深
没必要替塔利班宣传这个吧
其次 伊朗和塔利班教派不同 互相之间仇恨夜很深
没必要替塔利班宣传这个吧
我猜是真消息，补充第二个来源。需注意这句话：所以周一俄国驻北约大使提出关闭NDN（北部补给线）的消息一点都奇怪。
“So it was no coincidence that Russia’s ambassador to NATO chose Monday to raise the prospect of closing the NDN. ”
全文
Trucks laden with supplies and fuel for the NATO-led campaign in Afghanistan continued to stack up on the Pakistani side of the border Monday after Islamabad closed the border in protest following the deaths of 24 Pakistani servicemen in a cross-border incident early Saturday morning. While the breach in U.S.-Pakistani relations caused by the incident is of serious and profound significance, the closure of the border itself does not have the same on-the-ground impact it once did. The balance of American and allied logistical reliance for the war in Afghanistan has already shifted to the alternative Russia-controlled Northern Distribution Network (NDN), though the port of Karachi and Pakistani refineries are still needed to fully supply the war effort.
So it was no coincidence that Russia’s ambassador to NATO chose Monday to raise the prospect of closing the NDN. He explicitly tied his threat to the ongoing American effort to place ballistic missile defenses (BMD) in Europe. The threat is part of Russia’s long-standing effort to undercut U.S. efforts to enlarge its military footprint in the former Soviet periphery. Talks on BMD between Washington and Moscow, ahead of the December NATO-Russian Foreign Ministers conference, have borne little progress. In fact, relations between the two powers have declined, with Washington ceasing to share data in accordance with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (from which Russia suspended observance in 2007) and Russia once again threatening to park Iskander short-range ballistic missiles in the enclave of Kaliningrad.
The recent apparent calm between the United States and Russia reflects more a mutual agreement to focus attention elsewhere than it does any sort of “reset” or substantive change in underlying tensions. Moscow has been frustrated by the way Washington has pushed forward with its new “phased, adaptive approach” to BMD in Europe without addressing Russian objections. Russia, much as the Soviet Union before it, has long excelled at linking disparate issues to obtain maximum leverage. Now Moscow is presented with this convergence of recent events: the abrupt acceleration of the deterioration in U.S.-Pakistani relations, the ongoing but stalled U.S.-Russian negotiations on BMD and the upcoming meeting of Russian and NATO Foreign Ministers. Russia is reminding the United States that to supply the war effort in Afghanistan, Washington relies on Russian cooperation, and it is signaling that it expects more deference from Washington on the matter of BMD in Europe.
Russia’s Moment of Opportunity
Russia is in fact brandishing its true trump card — the biggest means of leverage it has in Washington’s regard. But the problem with the trump card is that once played, it loses its value — in this case, ceasing to play its political role.
In addition, the looming American drawdown means that the logistical burden of the forces that remain will decline with increasing rapidity in the years ahead. At this moment, the United States’ logistical vulnerability — and thus the leverage that Moscow might extract from it — is still heightened. It will inexorably lessen in the years ahead. In truth, Moscow is very uneasy about the looming American withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whereas the United States and its allies can go home, Russia shares a border with Central Asia; what problems NATO leaves unaddressed in the wake of its withdrawal will quickly become Russia’s own. Russia has an interest in doing enough to ensure the maximum American and allied commitment in Afghanistan, especially one that does not result in the emergence of permanent U.S. bases in the region. Washington and its allies manage and serve as a magnet for militant activity in Afghanistan and the wider region, while the war effort creates additional means of leverage for Russia (specifically, through the NDN) and maximizes the window of opportunity created by American focus on Afghanistan.
The United States is not simply fighting a land war in Asia, it is fighting a land war in Central Asia without direct access to the ocean. Washington incurs significant costs just to move troops there, and more costs to sustain them. The most direct supply route runs from the port of Karachi. This route, however, has proven so unwieldy and problematic that Washington has sought even longer lines of supply — stretching through much of the former Soviet Union as far as the Baltic Sea — at considerable additional expense in order to reduce its reliance on the cheaper, shorter Pakistani route. That financial calculus also reflects the political calculus – how much time, focus and effort Washington is willing to devote to facilitating its efforts in Afghanistan.
Ultimately Russia wants the United States in Afghanistan and wants to facilitate American engagement there. The real point is that the United States burned through considerable political capital and made a considerable investment in getting Russia to open up its airspace and territory — and to acquiesce to the opening of the territory of various Central Asia nations — in the first place. Now, just as the NDN begins in earnest to serve as the war effort’s primary supply route, Russia is signaling that it intends to use the NDN’s existence as leverage, same as it used the route’s creation before that. Russia does not want to close the NDN — it wants to maximize the concessions it can extract from it. In other words, Moscow aims to strike a balance – doing just enough to keep the Americans in Afghanistan, while working to make Washington’s commitment as costly as possible.
htt p://w ww.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20111128-russia-leverages-central-asia-tensions-bmd-talks
“So it was no coincidence that Russia’s ambassador to NATO chose Monday to raise the prospect of closing the NDN. ”
全文
Trucks laden with supplies and fuel for the NATO-led campaign in Afghanistan continued to stack up on the Pakistani side of the border Monday after Islamabad closed the border in protest following the deaths of 24 Pakistani servicemen in a cross-border incident early Saturday morning. While the breach in U.S.-Pakistani relations caused by the incident is of serious and profound significance, the closure of the border itself does not have the same on-the-ground impact it once did. The balance of American and allied logistical reliance for the war in Afghanistan has already shifted to the alternative Russia-controlled Northern Distribution Network (NDN), though the port of Karachi and Pakistani refineries are still needed to fully supply the war effort.
So it was no coincidence that Russia’s ambassador to NATO chose Monday to raise the prospect of closing the NDN. He explicitly tied his threat to the ongoing American effort to place ballistic missile defenses (BMD) in Europe. The threat is part of Russia’s long-standing effort to undercut U.S. efforts to enlarge its military footprint in the former Soviet periphery. Talks on BMD between Washington and Moscow, ahead of the December NATO-Russian Foreign Ministers conference, have borne little progress. In fact, relations between the two powers have declined, with Washington ceasing to share data in accordance with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (from which Russia suspended observance in 2007) and Russia once again threatening to park Iskander short-range ballistic missiles in the enclave of Kaliningrad.
The recent apparent calm between the United States and Russia reflects more a mutual agreement to focus attention elsewhere than it does any sort of “reset” or substantive change in underlying tensions. Moscow has been frustrated by the way Washington has pushed forward with its new “phased, adaptive approach” to BMD in Europe without addressing Russian objections. Russia, much as the Soviet Union before it, has long excelled at linking disparate issues to obtain maximum leverage. Now Moscow is presented with this convergence of recent events: the abrupt acceleration of the deterioration in U.S.-Pakistani relations, the ongoing but stalled U.S.-Russian negotiations on BMD and the upcoming meeting of Russian and NATO Foreign Ministers. Russia is reminding the United States that to supply the war effort in Afghanistan, Washington relies on Russian cooperation, and it is signaling that it expects more deference from Washington on the matter of BMD in Europe.
Russia’s Moment of Opportunity
Russia is in fact brandishing its true trump card — the biggest means of leverage it has in Washington’s regard. But the problem with the trump card is that once played, it loses its value — in this case, ceasing to play its political role.
In addition, the looming American drawdown means that the logistical burden of the forces that remain will decline with increasing rapidity in the years ahead. At this moment, the United States’ logistical vulnerability — and thus the leverage that Moscow might extract from it — is still heightened. It will inexorably lessen in the years ahead. In truth, Moscow is very uneasy about the looming American withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whereas the United States and its allies can go home, Russia shares a border with Central Asia; what problems NATO leaves unaddressed in the wake of its withdrawal will quickly become Russia’s own. Russia has an interest in doing enough to ensure the maximum American and allied commitment in Afghanistan, especially one that does not result in the emergence of permanent U.S. bases in the region. Washington and its allies manage and serve as a magnet for militant activity in Afghanistan and the wider region, while the war effort creates additional means of leverage for Russia (specifically, through the NDN) and maximizes the window of opportunity created by American focus on Afghanistan.
The United States is not simply fighting a land war in Asia, it is fighting a land war in Central Asia without direct access to the ocean. Washington incurs significant costs just to move troops there, and more costs to sustain them. The most direct supply route runs from the port of Karachi. This route, however, has proven so unwieldy and problematic that Washington has sought even longer lines of supply — stretching through much of the former Soviet Union as far as the Baltic Sea — at considerable additional expense in order to reduce its reliance on the cheaper, shorter Pakistani route. That financial calculus also reflects the political calculus – how much time, focus and effort Washington is willing to devote to facilitating its efforts in Afghanistan.
Ultimately Russia wants the United States in Afghanistan and wants to facilitate American engagement there. The real point is that the United States burned through considerable political capital and made a considerable investment in getting Russia to open up its airspace and territory — and to acquiesce to the opening of the territory of various Central Asia nations — in the first place. Now, just as the NDN begins in earnest to serve as the war effort’s primary supply route, Russia is signaling that it intends to use the NDN’s existence as leverage, same as it used the route’s creation before that. Russia does not want to close the NDN — it wants to maximize the concessions it can extract from it. In other words, Moscow aims to strike a balance – doing just enough to keep the Americans in Afghanistan, while working to make Washington’s commitment as costly as possible.
htt p://w ww.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20111128-russia-leverages-central-asia-tensions-bmd-talks
After Pakistan Closes U.S. Supply Routes to Afghanistan, Russia Warns About the Northern Route, Too
.Home » News
After Pakistan Closes U.S. Supply Routes to Afghanistan, Russia Warns About the Northern Route, Too
By Patrick Goodenough
November 29, 2011
Subscribe to Patrick Goodenough's posts
Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin (Photo: Russian mission to NATO)
(CNSNews.com) – Ratcheting up a dispute with Washington over plans for a NATO European missile defense system, a senior Russian official has warned that his country may stop cooperating with the alliance over a crucial supply link to Afghanistan.
The Interfax news agency quoted Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin as telling national lawmakers in Moscow that if NATO does not respond to Russia’s concerns about missile defense, “We will have to link them with other matters … this could include Afghanistan.”
The timing of the implied threat could hardly be worse for the United States, given Pakistan’s decision this week to suspend supplies to NATO forces in response a lethal Nov. 26 airstrike along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, now under NATO and U.S. investigation.
NATO fuel tankers enter Afghanistan through Pakistan's border crossing in Torkham, east of Kabul, in this Oct 10, 2010 file photo. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)
Almost half of the supplies bound for the around 131,000 NATO-led troops in landlocked Afghanistan, including more than 90,000 Americans, moves through Pakistan, most by truck from the port of Karachi. State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed Monday that the supply routes have been closed.
“The war effort [in Afghanistan] continues,” Pentagon press secretary George Little told reporters. “Everyone realizes we have an enemy to engage in Afghanistan, and the U.S. military is prepared to carry on.”
Little said he did not have information to share on how long coalition forces could continue to operate without the supply lines through Pakistan.
A northern supply route across Russia and Central Asia opened in mid-2010, after several years of negotiations prompted by NATO worries about the security of cargo moving through Pakistan, where supply convoys have periodically come under Taliban attack. (Before the northern route opened, about 80 percent of the supplies and 40 percent of fuel for the coalition mission were going through Pakistan.)
Rogozin, an outspoken nationalist, is seen as a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. His appointment by Putin – then president – to the Brussels-based diplomatic post in early 2008 was seen as part of a shift towards a more assertive stance towards the West.
His warning Monday about Afghanistan came several days after President Dmitry Medvedev announced that in response to NATO’s missile defense plans Russia may deploy “advanced offensive weapon systems” near its borders with Europe. This could include the positioning of Iskander short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave bordering Poland – a threat Moscow has made on and off since 2008.
Medvedev also said Russia would consider withdrawing from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the U.S. if its concerns about the missile defense system were not resolved.
The dispute first began when the Bush administration a decade ago proposed a ballistic missile defense umbrella to defend it and its allies from the threat of missiles fired by hostile states, primarily Iran. Agreements were later reached with Poland and the Czech Republic to station facilities in the two former Warsaw Pact countries, but the proposals ran into strong opposition from Moscow.
The Pentagon repeatedly insisted that the system aimed to deter and protect against “rogue states,” and would not weaken Russia’s nuclear deterrent. The Kremlin, however, maintained that it would harm its security, and threatened retaliation.
As part of his initiative to “reset” strained relations with Russia, President Obama after a lengthy review announced he was scrapping the original plan, in favor of a “phased adaptive approach,” designed to protect first south-eastern Europe, and eventually all of Europe, against short- and medium-range missiles. Elements would be deployed in Turkey, Poland and Romania.
Russia was invited to participate in what would now be a NATO project, and at a summit in Portugal a year ago tentatively agreed. But differences quickly emerged over how cooperation would work and negotiations got bogged down.
On Monday, Rogozin told the Russian parliament he plans to visit China and Iran in January to discuss the missile defense controversy, the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency reported.
It quoted him as saying he would meet with foreign ministry and military officials in China, and with the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
Because of possible future implications for north-east Asia, China has also been leery about U.S. missile defense proposals. Last July it put its name to a statement by the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization criticizing the U.S. plans, which it said “could harm strategic stability and international security.”
As the country overtly targeted by the planned shield, Iran evidently is strongly opposed too. It has threatened to target the NATO early warning radar station which Turkey last September agreed to host as part of the missile defense system.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-pakistan-closes-us-supply-routes-afghanistan-russia-warns-about-northern-route
.Home » News
After Pakistan Closes U.S. Supply Routes to Afghanistan, Russia Warns About the Northern Route, Too
By Patrick Goodenough
November 29, 2011
Subscribe to Patrick Goodenough's posts
Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin (Photo: Russian mission to NATO)
(CNSNews.com) – Ratcheting up a dispute with Washington over plans for a NATO European missile defense system, a senior Russian official has warned that his country may stop cooperating with the alliance over a crucial supply link to Afghanistan.
The Interfax news agency quoted Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin as telling national lawmakers in Moscow that if NATO does not respond to Russia’s concerns about missile defense, “We will have to link them with other matters … this could include Afghanistan.”
The timing of the implied threat could hardly be worse for the United States, given Pakistan’s decision this week to suspend supplies to NATO forces in response a lethal Nov. 26 airstrike along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, now under NATO and U.S. investigation.
NATO fuel tankers enter Afghanistan through Pakistan's border crossing in Torkham, east of Kabul, in this Oct 10, 2010 file photo. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)
Almost half of the supplies bound for the around 131,000 NATO-led troops in landlocked Afghanistan, including more than 90,000 Americans, moves through Pakistan, most by truck from the port of Karachi. State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed Monday that the supply routes have been closed.
“The war effort [in Afghanistan] continues,” Pentagon press secretary George Little told reporters. “Everyone realizes we have an enemy to engage in Afghanistan, and the U.S. military is prepared to carry on.”
Little said he did not have information to share on how long coalition forces could continue to operate without the supply lines through Pakistan.
A northern supply route across Russia and Central Asia opened in mid-2010, after several years of negotiations prompted by NATO worries about the security of cargo moving through Pakistan, where supply convoys have periodically come under Taliban attack. (Before the northern route opened, about 80 percent of the supplies and 40 percent of fuel for the coalition mission were going through Pakistan.)
Rogozin, an outspoken nationalist, is seen as a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. His appointment by Putin – then president – to the Brussels-based diplomatic post in early 2008 was seen as part of a shift towards a more assertive stance towards the West.
His warning Monday about Afghanistan came several days after President Dmitry Medvedev announced that in response to NATO’s missile defense plans Russia may deploy “advanced offensive weapon systems” near its borders with Europe. This could include the positioning of Iskander short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave bordering Poland – a threat Moscow has made on and off since 2008.
Medvedev also said Russia would consider withdrawing from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the U.S. if its concerns about the missile defense system were not resolved.
The dispute first began when the Bush administration a decade ago proposed a ballistic missile defense umbrella to defend it and its allies from the threat of missiles fired by hostile states, primarily Iran. Agreements were later reached with Poland and the Czech Republic to station facilities in the two former Warsaw Pact countries, but the proposals ran into strong opposition from Moscow.
The Pentagon repeatedly insisted that the system aimed to deter and protect against “rogue states,” and would not weaken Russia’s nuclear deterrent. The Kremlin, however, maintained that it would harm its security, and threatened retaliation.
As part of his initiative to “reset” strained relations with Russia, President Obama after a lengthy review announced he was scrapping the original plan, in favor of a “phased adaptive approach,” designed to protect first south-eastern Europe, and eventually all of Europe, against short- and medium-range missiles. Elements would be deployed in Turkey, Poland and Romania.
Russia was invited to participate in what would now be a NATO project, and at a summit in Portugal a year ago tentatively agreed. But differences quickly emerged over how cooperation would work and negotiations got bogged down.
On Monday, Rogozin told the Russian parliament he plans to visit China and Iran in January to discuss the missile defense controversy, the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency reported.
It quoted him as saying he would meet with foreign ministry and military officials in China, and with the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
Because of possible future implications for north-east Asia, China has also been leery about U.S. missile defense proposals. Last July it put its name to a statement by the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization criticizing the U.S. plans, which it said “could harm strategic stability and international security.”
As the country overtly targeted by the planned shield, Iran evidently is strongly opposed too. It has threatened to target the NATO early warning radar station which Turkey last September agreed to host as part of the missile defense system.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-pakistan-closes-us-supply-routes-afghanistan-russia-warns-about-northern-route
靠他国武力打击邻居来确保自己的安全？这得多大的带路精神才想得出来啊？
就是当了几十年狗的小日本，也不会想出这样的东西来。。。。。
就是当了几十年狗的小日本，也不会想出这样的东西来。。。。。
“俄国中断美军阿富汗补给线”本来就是假消息，因为是楼主自己想出来的。 人家说的是“俄国考虑中断美军阿富汗补给线”
俄国要真这么干问题就大了，这叫漫天要价，着地还钱。
俄国要真这么干问题就大了，这叫漫天要价，着地还钱。
哈哈，看来我提的建议美军采纳了啊。
只是我有个更深的疑惑，北约难道一定是美帝干的吗？这个误炸的黑锅为什么一定是美帝背呢？然后现在的情况是，美帝的10万大军真的是被包了饺子，只差上锅去蒸了。我们现在得到的消息是，北约炸的，小巴说要永久关闭补给线，俄罗斯的要价估计是要吓死人的，况且从小巴那里美帝一直是肆无忌惮，什么武器都可以运进来，从俄罗斯走的话，估计危险了。如果塔利班来个冬季攻势，佯攻，再佯攻，再佯攻，然后真实攻击，美帝那些可怜的大兵在木有足够的弹药的情况下，会怎么办啊怎么办？
如果美帝想赔偿，TB对小巴说，他能给的，我加倍给，但是一定要继续关闭补给线。美帝就悲催了啊。撤军，也要从周边国家能撤出来啊，难道美帝能在阿富汗建个太空发射场，然后所有的士兵都从太空回家不成？
只是我有个更深的疑惑，北约难道一定是美帝干的吗？这个误炸的黑锅为什么一定是美帝背呢？然后现在的情况是，美帝的10万大军真的是被包了饺子，只差上锅去蒸了。我们现在得到的消息是，北约炸的，小巴说要永久关闭补给线，俄罗斯的要价估计是要吓死人的，况且从小巴那里美帝一直是肆无忌惮，什么武器都可以运进来，从俄罗斯走的话，估计危险了。如果塔利班来个冬季攻势，佯攻，再佯攻，再佯攻，然后真实攻击，美帝那些可怜的大兵在木有足够的弹药的情况下，会怎么办啊怎么办？
如果美帝想赔偿，TB对小巴说，他能给的，我加倍给，但是一定要继续关闭补给线。美帝就悲催了啊。撤军，也要从周边国家能撤出来啊，难道美帝能在阿富汗建个太空发射场，然后所有的士兵都从太空回家不成？
拓峰寒 发表于 2011-11-30 07:11 ![]()
哈哈，看来我提的建议美军采纳了啊。
只是我有个更深的疑惑，北约难道一定是美帝干的吗？这个误炸的黑锅为 ...
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 毕竟这个不是打太极啊 10万美国兵在阿 吃穿住用行 还要打仗 只能是尽最大可能的多点赔偿
哈哈，看来我提的建议美军采纳了啊。
只是我有个更深的疑惑，北约难道一定是美帝干的吗？这个误炸的黑锅为 ...
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 毕竟这个不是打太极啊 10万美国兵在阿 吃穿住用行 还要打仗 只能是尽最大可能的多点赔偿
zhaoyunll 发表于 2011-11-30 07:18 ![]()
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 ...
这个观点我不太认同啊，就好比两个人比着憋气，现在美帝是头没在水里了，但是小巴，最多是被人捂着嘴鼻，用力喘两下还可以坚持会。你试试10万人突然间看不到补给的感觉呢？慌不慌啊？
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 ...
这个观点我不太认同啊，就好比两个人比着憋气，现在美帝是头没在水里了，但是小巴，最多是被人捂着嘴鼻，用力喘两下还可以坚持会。你试试10万人突然间看不到补给的感觉呢？慌不慌啊？
应该是真消息，皮肤之痒于心腹大患孰重孰轻，毛子还是分的清的。
是啊 我的出发点是 小巴或是小巴背后的支持者是王八吃秤砣 铁了心的要 关闭补给线 困死饿死累死那10万人 什么条件都不答应在开放 美国佬在谈无可谈 的时候 平他以前的案底 他会怎么做呢？
这估计就是毛子看到小巴关闭了，然后勒索MD的一张牌
这个观点我不太认同啊，就好比两个人比着憋气，现在美帝是头没在水里了，但是小巴，最多是被人捂着嘴鼻， ...
慌啥，伙食标准降一半而已。
慌啥，伙食标准降一半而已。
楼主觉得小巴关闭运输线的消息是真的吗?如果是,毛子不放消息要价还是毛子的作风吗?即使不是官方的来源,用屁股想一想都知道毛子将干什么.
好像土共算定毛子死保叙利亚
这叫围魏救赵
阿富汗和老毛子不接壤，难道通过控制3个斯坦中断？zhaoyunll 发表于 2011-11-30 07:18 ![]()
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 ...
怕啥 反正 跟咱们门对门的
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 ...
怕啥 反正 跟咱们门对门的
zhaoyunll 发表于 2011-11-30 07:18 ![]()
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 ...
这次它再一堵，那真是要他命， 搞乱小巴MD的东西更不可能运进去去了
美国那个老流氓 谈不拢 军舰往小巴门口一堵 经济 政治 军事 和小巴国内的各种势力 可以把小巴整得死去活来 ...
这次它再一堵，那真是要他命， 搞乱小巴MD的东西更不可能运进去去了
hyr801117-1 发表于 2011-11-30 08:45 ![]()
这叫围魏救赵
是的，毛子可以 借小巴关闭补给线而提高他那边的价码，比如要求北约不要对叙利亚进行军事干预，在阿富汗的那帮大兵现在看来就是人质啊
这叫围魏救赵
是的，毛子可以 借小巴关闭补给线而提高他那边的价码，比如要求北约不要对叙利亚进行军事干预，在阿富汗的那帮大兵现在看来就是人质啊
drakan 发表于 2011-11-30 09:12 ![]()
阿富汗和老毛子不接壤，难道通过控制3个斯坦中断？
MD北线的物质要走波罗地海先过毛子再进入三个斯坦再进阿富汗的。
阿富汗和老毛子不接壤，难道通过控制3个斯坦中断？
MD北线的物质要走波罗地海先过毛子再进入三个斯坦再进阿富汗的。
不可能让那十几万人断水断粮的。纯粹就是恶心他们，让他们难受。真让那些人活不下去，后果实际是非常严重的。
catsite 发表于 2011-11-30 08:02 ![]()
慌啥，伙食标准降一半而已。
大兵会很不高兴，家里面会各种YX，说为国家卖命连生活都没有保障，
所以美帝是不会得罪大兵的，估计通过很强硬的手段加上优厚的绿条子来让巴铁开放补给
慌啥，伙食标准降一半而已。
大兵会很不高兴，家里面会各种YX，说为国家卖命连生活都没有保障，
所以美帝是不会得罪大兵的，估计通过很强硬的手段加上优厚的绿条子来让巴铁开放补给
有翻译不，看方言压力大！
拓峰寒 发表于 2011-11-30 07:22 ![]()
这个观点我不太认同啊，就好比两个人比着憋气，现在美帝是头没在水里了，但是小巴，最多是被人捂着嘴鼻， ...
恩有可能瞬间都变成KB分子了！！！
这个观点我不太认同啊，就好比两个人比着憋气，现在美帝是头没在水里了，但是小巴，最多是被人捂着嘴鼻， ...
恩有可能瞬间都变成KB分子了！！！
作为遵循原教旨的塔利班政权，本身是禁毒的……阿富汗的罂粟种植量是在美阿战争之后扩大的……
不知道LZ干嘛拿毒品说事……
不知道LZ干嘛拿毒品说事……
不要用我们的思维考虑毛子，不要犯就像美帝用基督思维考虑我们一样MGB 发表于 2011-11-30 09:39 ![]()
是的，毛子可以 借小巴关闭补给线而提高他那边的价码，比如要求北约不要对叙利亚进行军事干预，在阿富汗的 ...
小巴断了补给线，和美国炸小巴，我都怀疑是TB一手策划的，
是的，毛子可以 借小巴关闭补给线而提高他那边的价码，比如要求北约不要对叙利亚进行军事干预，在阿富汗的 ...
小巴断了补给线，和美国炸小巴，我都怀疑是TB一手策划的，
如果北约国家军事打击叙利亚，俄国估计要下狠手的！
hyr801117-1 发表于 2011-11-30 10:02 ![]()
小巴断了补给线，和美国炸小巴，我都怀疑是TB一手策划的，
这个，这个...........现在不太好说，但这事太蹊跷了
小巴断了补给线，和美国炸小巴，我都怀疑是TB一手策划的，
这个，这个...........现在不太好说，但这事太蹊跷了
MGB 发表于 2011-11-30 10:16 ![]()
这个，这个...........现在不太好说，但这事太蹊跷了
是啊怎么就在这个节骨眼上，出了这些事情，还是有关联的
这个，这个...........现在不太好说，但这事太蹊跷了
是啊怎么就在这个节骨眼上，出了这些事情，还是有关联的
阿富汗养10万人我估计还是养得起的，但是油料和弹药就不能保证了。没有子弹的枪比烧火棍如何？
dadlitao 发表于 2011-11-30 04:23 ![]()
靠他国武力打击邻居来确保自己的安全？这得多大的带路精神才想得出来啊？
就是当了几十年狗的小日本，也不 ...
+10086+10010
靠他国武力打击邻居来确保自己的安全？这得多大的带路精神才想得出来啊？
就是当了几十年狗的小日本，也不 ...
+10086+10010
MGB 发表于 2011-11-30 09:35 ![]()
这次它再一堵，那真是要他命， 搞乱小巴MD的东西更不可能运进去去了
还可能出不来，那个TLB再那个炮仗乱扔，好看
这次它再一堵，那真是要他命， 搞乱小巴MD的东西更不可能运进去去了
还可能出不来，那个TLB再那个炮仗乱扔，好看
zhaoyunll 发表于 2011-11-30 07:28 ![]()
是啊 我的出发点是 小巴或是小巴背后的支持者是王八吃秤砣 铁了心的要 关闭补给线 困死饿死累死那10万人 什 ...
给小巴随便扣哥屎盆子，找借口小规模入侵，打通一条通道。
是啊 我的出发点是 小巴或是小巴背后的支持者是王八吃秤砣 铁了心的要 关闭补给线 困死饿死累死那10万人 什 ...
给小巴随便扣哥屎盆子，找借口小规模入侵，打通一条通道。
_caiyz_ 发表于 2011-11-30 10:33 ![]()
给小巴随便扣哥屎盆子，找借口小规模入侵，打通一条通道。
小巴可以做几次核试验玩玩
给小巴随便扣哥屎盆子，找借口小规模入侵，打通一条通道。
小巴可以做几次核试验玩玩
直说了吧
是真消息，俄罗斯如果没有想掐断北约补给线，那么巴基斯坦就不会动手
巴基斯坦是跟俄罗斯约好的，这中间人是小白兔
俄罗斯要入世，美国要俄罗斯拿叙利亚交换，俄罗斯不干，俄罗斯不但要入世，还要保住叙利亚，就这么简单
前阵子IMF总裁拉加德还到俄罗斯游说，叫俄罗斯放弃入世，说俄罗斯是能源出口国，如果意义不大
这是法国人在忽悠俄罗斯，俄罗斯如果不入世，就永远注定了是能源出口国，俄罗斯入世有利于实现经济多元化
是真消息，俄罗斯如果没有想掐断北约补给线，那么巴基斯坦就不会动手
巴基斯坦是跟俄罗斯约好的，这中间人是小白兔
俄罗斯要入世，美国要俄罗斯拿叙利亚交换，俄罗斯不干，俄罗斯不但要入世，还要保住叙利亚，就这么简单
前阵子IMF总裁拉加德还到俄罗斯游说，叫俄罗斯放弃入世，说俄罗斯是能源出口国，如果意义不大
这是法国人在忽悠俄罗斯，俄罗斯如果不入世，就永远注定了是能源出口国，俄罗斯入世有利于实现经济多元化
要价而已，还能真让10w大兵吃不上饭啊
“可能”是假消息，自然也“可能”是真消息
LZ等于没说
LZ等于没说