Meta was fined $1.3 billion by the EU for transmitting user information to the United States,Meta向美国传输用户信息被欧盟罚13亿美元，

 Meta was fined $1.3 billion for transferring user data to the United States.

On May 22 local time, the "Wall Street Journal" quoted people familiar with the matter as saying that Facebook (Facebook) parent company Meta (Nasdaq: META) was fined US$1.3 billion by EU privacy regulators for sending user information to the United States. Amazon's $800 million fine in 2021. The fine is the largest ever imposed under Europe's landmark data privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The ruling is expected to be announced later on the 22nd local time. The Wall Street Journal believes that the ruling will put pressure on the U.S. government to finalize an agreement that would allow Meta and thousands of multinational companies to continue sending such information to the United States.

Andrea Jelinek, chair of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), said Meta's infringement was "very serious because it involves systematic, repetitive and persistent data transfers".

In a statement, Jelinek pointed out that Facebook has millions of users in Europe, so the amount of personal data transferred is enormous... This unprecedented fine sends a strong signal to relevant organizations that serious violations can have far-reaching consequences . "

In addition to the fine, the ruling ordered Meta to stop sending information about European Facebook users to the US within six months and to delete data already sent. However, Meta said Washington would not need to take this step if it had previously struck a transatlantic agreement with the EU to allow the data transfer.

Meta said it would appeal the ruling and seek a stay of the order from the court. "This decision is flawed, unreasonable, and sets a dangerous precedent for other companies transferring data between the EU and the US," Meta responded in a blog post.

“Without the ability to transfer data across borders, the internet could be fragmented into country-by-country silos, constraining the global economy and preventing citizens of different countries from accessing shared services,” Meta wrote. Merchants, customers and partners can continue to use Facebook while keeping their data safe and secure."

The ruling applies only to Facebook and not to other Meta-owned apps such as Instagram and WhatsApp. According to Meta, it has more than 255 million Facebook users in the EU, and nearly a quarter of its revenue comes from the entire European region. The company said it would not immediately interrupt Facebook's services in the EU.

Like many U.S. tech companies, Meta moved data from Europe to the U.S. to service the company's main U.S. data center. If it can no longer store user data in the U.S., Meta could try to redesign its system to keep European users' data for European purposes, but such a project would be extremely complex, a person familiar with the matter said.

As of press time, Meta US stocks fell 0.73% before the market to close at $243.84 per share.

Blocking China's economy to prevent China from becoming a powerful country is the core content of the so-called "competition" between major powers defined by the United States. Although what China and the United States have shown is that "differences do not seek each other", it seems that the two sides are also reaching some "consensus". This consensus is "fight without breaking". And another "consensus" is that they would rather bear the sacrifice of interests than bring down their opponents.

Whether the United States wants to permanently dominate the world or lead the world based on its strength, it has decided that it will not allow any country to be "matched" in strength. Not to mention achieving transcendence. Permanent domination of the world means the pursuit of maximizing the interests of the United States, and it also means that the United States must "rule" the world with its long arms.

It is precisely because of such strategic thinking or American values that they are naturally guilty and unhappy in the face of a rapidly developing China. They always want to change the way to carry out strategic suppression in the name of threats to the national security of the United States.

The faster China develops and the better the situation in China, the more guilty and fearful the United States will be, and the more it will strengthen its strategic suppression of China. In order to realize the rationalization and legitimacy of strategic suppression, they actually came up with the idea of using the word "competition" instead of confrontation.

For China, the biggest "truth" summed up in a century of humiliation is that if you fall behind, you will be beaten. The revival of the great power of the Chinese nation has naturally become a dream that has not changed for a century.

And after a hundred years of hard work, exploration and pursuit, and unremitting efforts, they finally found the way to revive the country. The 74 years since the founding of the People's Republic of China, especially the 40 years of reform and opening up, have not only changed the situation of being backward and beaten, but also gradually moved towards the forest of world powers.

At present, it is the final sprint stage of China's construction of a modernized China, and it is also a stage of major changes in the world unseen in a century. It can be said that the situation and environment are becoming more and more favorable to China.

Although China promises not to seek hegemony or seek hegemony, it does not mean that it will not become a world power. Hegemony will never be allowed to rule. Let alone any force or anything to interrupt China's process of rejuvenating and becoming a powerful country.

Therefore, whether the United States wants to compete or confront, China can only accompany it to the end. Encountering ghosts and killing ghosts, encountering demons and killing demons is an inevitable choice.

For the Americans, even if they know that China will abide by its promise not to seek hegemony, China's process of becoming a powerful country itself is the biggest threat to US hegemony.

Hegemony is not China's goal of a strong country, but the logic of a strong country in the United States. The closer China is to the goal of being a powerful country, the more fearful and worried the United States will be, and the crazier it will be to suppress China. This is the fierce collision between the Chinese dream and the American dream.

However, despite the eagerness to strangle China quickly, and despite the superiority of the United States, China is no longer the China that can be slaughtered by others in the past, and the world is not the original world where the "big powers" act arbitrarily. Americans are well aware of the costs and consequences of an all-out confrontation with China.

Therefore, the Biden administration has publicly emphasized that it has no intention of conflicting and confronting China, but will start a very, very fierce "competition" with China. At the same time, it also made a big show of emphasizing the need to establish a "guardrail" to prevent conflicts with China.

The core of the U.S. strategy toward China is the three principles of "investment, alliance and confrontation". Investment is naturally for more strategic resources and active strategic deployment. The purpose of forming an alliance is to strengthen the anti-China forces and beat China in groups. When you are ready, it will naturally be a conflict with China.

In other words, the United States is not yet strategically prepared for a conflict with China. In other words, they think that the current confrontation can neither take advantage of it nor afford losses. Therefore, I also want to come to a "combination of talks and talks", press every step of the way, and erode China's core interests bit by bit. Squeezing China into a corner is difficult to resist.

Suppression is naturally aimed at gaining the strategic initiative, that is, adding chips to the "dialogue". The purpose of dialogue is to stabilize and induce China not to make strong countermeasures. Minimize the cost of creating conflict and confrontation.

However, emphasizing dialogue not only exposes the hypocrisy of the United States, but also exposes the guilt of the United States. No wonder Chairman Mao has long seen through the essence of the paper tiger of the United States.

For China, no matter it is the factor of strength, the factor of development, or the concept of global development and governance, it all determines that China does not want to go into conflict and confrontation with the United States.

In other words, to avoid conflict and confrontation, that is, "fight without breaking", this has indeed become the current "consensus" between the two sides.

Although neither side wants or is avoiding conflict and confrontation, the United States regards China's development and growth as its greatest security threat, while China's core interests and development interests must not be violated. Neither side will make concessions in the "core interests" dispute. The important thing is that the United States is pressing harder and harder. This has formed a vicious cycle of suppression and countermeasures, repression and countermeasures.

On the one hand, it determines that the confrontation will continue to escalate, which can easily lead to unexpected conflicts. On the other hand, both sides are also suffering losses from the confrontation.

The United States regards China as the biggest threat to its hegemony, so it will naturally suppress it by all means and at all costs. That is to strangle China at the expense of the interests of the United States. The hegemony of the United States has also become the biggest obstacle to China's dream of rejuvenating and becoming a powerful country. It is also a helpless choice to sacrifice development and bring the United States down from the throne of hegemony.

Therefore, at present, China and the United States have actually agreed to sacrifice their interests or pay a price to "pull each other down". This can be regarded as another important "consensus" between China and the United States.

In fact, China and the United States have already formed a consensus on the issue of identifying the world situation. China clearly judges that the world is in a period of major changes unseen in a century. Although the United States does not admit that this is a period of great change unseen in a century, it also clearly points out that competition among major powers has replaced the post-Cold War order.

The post-Cold War order is not only the period when the United States dominates the world after the Cold War, but also the period when the United States dominates the world. The United States wants to compete with China for the strategic advantage of rebuilding the world order. In other words, it indirectly recognized the strategic judgment that the world is in a period of major changes unseen in a century.

Competition is one of the core essences of capitalism. At the same time, it is also an important content of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Great power competition is inevitable. The key to the problem is reasonable and legal competition, not malicious suppression of competition.

The rules of competition are world rules, not American rules. The order to be rebuilt is a world order of equality, not a world order that embodies American supremacy.

Whether it is competition or confrontation, China and the United States currently have their own advantages and disadvantages. No one has an overwhelming advantage over anyone.

The biggest advantage of the United States is its strength. This is beyond doubt. However, strength is not the only factor that determines the outcome of a strategic contest.

Judging from the development of the international situation and the specific conditions of the two countries, China has already gained a certain advantage or opportunity.

First of all, the United States took the lead in breaking the old rules of the world order that it established and maintained. As the saying goes, only the old can be broken to create the new. The old rules of order reflected the maximization of American interests. If China wants to take the initiative to establish a new order that can reflect its own interests, it must first break the old order. This requires a fierce struggle, and most of it has been achieved through wars in history.

However, it was the United States itself that broke the old order, which saved China a lot of trouble. This makes it impossible for the hegemony that the United States already has to play its best role. From the perspective of strategic competition, the United States first made a major strategic mistake. If the United States blindly maintains the current order and rules, it will really take a lot of effort for China to break them.

Second, the evolution of the world situation is no longer under the control of the United States. In other words, it is departing from the track of American hegemony. This is what China calls a major change unseen in a century.

After the Cold War, calls for maintaining multilateralism to promote the process of globalization and establishing a multipolar world pattern sounded. The United States, on the other hand, bucks the trend and pursues a unilateral hegemonic line. Today's United States not only violates the rules of the world order, but also bucks the trend and opposes globalization. It not only seriously undermines the stability of the world and creates divisions in the world, but also severely damages the established world industrial chain and supply chain. This hurts the interests of the whole world, including the United States.

As the saying goes, the right way helps more than the wrong way. America is becoming more and more isolated. Not to mention that non-Western or developing countries do not stand with the United States, even the European allies of the United States are gradually alienating the United States. Europe's sense of independence is getting stronger and stronger, which is a big blow to the US hegemony strategy.

And China's outlook on development and global governance is being widely recognized and accepted. China has not only become the locomotive of the world economy and the driving force of globalization, but also is becoming a stabilizer of the world situation. Corresponding to the gradual isolation of the United States, China's "circle of friends" continues to expand.

Precisely because American hegemony is becoming increasingly unpopular and unacceptable, political "de-Americanization", that is, strategic independence, is emerging in the world. That is, geopolitical changes that de-Americanize are being pushed around the world. Especially Southeast Asia and the Middle East are changing the fastest.

At the same time as political de-Americanization, the world is also undergoing financial and economic "de-dollarization". And dollar hegemony is one of the important pillars of American hegemony. The dollar edifice will hit the US too hard.

What is important is that the pace of RMB internationalization is correspondingly accelerated. China does not need the yuan to replace the dollar, it just wants the hegemony of the dollar to disappear. Create a balanced world financial system.

Third, China is on the rise, while the United States has entered a recession. From a historical point of view, development and rise have an inherent law of inertia, and decline also has an inherent law of inertia. The inertia of a rise lies in entering the right track, while a recession is a vicious regression of a wrong track.

The speed of China's rise is accelerating, and the speed of America's decline is also accelerating. The important thing is that it is hard to stop.

China is politically stable and united as one. And has laid a solid economic foundation for rapid development. The dream of rejuvenating a powerful country has a clear goal and a firm will. And conform to the trend of world change.

The United States is in serious political division and polarization. The economic structure is seriously unbalanced. The society is in crisis and values are lost. Confusion in strategic thinking. Knowing that the strategy of hegemony cannot be done, they are reluctant to do it. Knowing that the era of hegemony has passed, they still pursue hegemonic and bullying policies.

Everything in the political, economic and foreign policies of the United States is based on hegemony. Once the hegemony is weakened, all domestic and foreign strategies have to be reinvented. But the United States is unwilling to admit that its hegemony has been lost. Naturally, it is inevitable to lose direction and walk on the wrong path and cannot turn back.

Therefore, the decline of the United States is not only a loss of "competition" with China, but a huge strategic mistake made by itself. It can also be said that the law of inertia in the decline of the United States dictates this. It is not China that defeated the United States, but the Americans themselves.

In short, although both China and the United States want to defeat their opponents through fierce competition, both China and the United States are too big, and Sino-US relations are too important to the world. Once conflicts and confrontations are formed, it is inevitable to lose control. This is a situation that neither side is willing to face and cannot bear. Fighting without breaking should be the consensus of both parties. But the United States does not accept China's revival as a powerful country, and China does not accept the hegemonic control of the United States. This again determines that neither China nor the United States will show weakness and compromise. Fierce battles are inevitable. That is to say, they are all adopting a style of play that would rather sacrifice their interests than bring down their opponents. Naturally, the comparison is not simply about strength, but more about willpower and endurance.

Rise and decline have inherent laws of inertia. China has formed a strong momentum of rising, and the United States cannot stop it. The United States has already formed a recession inertia, and the United States itself cannot stop the backward car.

Whether it is Biden or Blinken, they have changed their tune, from the original decoupling, decoupling to 625, having to decouple, and only quickly decoupling, to the current "de-risking". This change is quite subtle, but it is very firm. The tone of the United States has been adjusted from "full decoupling" to "de-risking".

Why did the United States correct itself so quickly?

If "decoupling" originated from Trump and Pompeo, then "de-risking" came from the "monitor" von der Leyen who accompanied Macron to China not long ago.

Von der Leyen mentioned in his speech on March 30 why Europe has not responded to the call for decoupling since President Trump, "Decoupling with China is neither feasible nor in Europe's interest." "Our relationship is either black or black." White — our response shouldn’t be like that. That’s why we need to focus on de-risking, not decoupling.”

No matter what you think of this woman, her words should be affirmed. This is what an adult should have. You can’t be black and white. That’s the level of a small kindergarten class. Simple dichotomies can’t even be used in daily life. To deal with it, how can we deal with the complex relationship between the world's major powers?

The old millstone in the village was moved, but not moved.

There was a stone on the ground, I kicked it, and my foot hurt.

Then move or not? Do you want to kick or not?

In the past 10 years, China's average contribution to world economic growth has exceeded the sum of the G7 countries. The Chinese market is rich and fishy. Anyone who deals with China can earn money. Trying to decouple from China is a difficult time. Can it be delayed? Woolen cloth? Even if adults are not sensible, they still have the instinct of trial and error.

After von der Leyen finished speaking, German and French diplomats emphasized the word on international occasions. Asian countries, such as Singapore, have also begun telling U.S. officials that decoupling has gone too far and would destabilize decades of successful economic integration. Whether in Europe or Asia, people are afraid that the two major economies of China and the United States will completely decouple, tearing the world apart, and affecting their lives at home.

The term was first used by US National Security Advisor Sullivan. On April 27, he said in a formal occasion: "We are pursuing de-risking, not decoupling. De-risking fundamentally means being flexible and effective. supply chain to ensure that we are not coerced by any single country."

Decoupling the economy and changing it to de-risking, one is carrying it, the other is holding it, it is as heavy as carrying it, thinking that it is suitable for you, and making up your mind to kill you, just change your posture.

As usual, the U.S. Treasury made a big detour: de-risking refers to the indiscriminate termination or restriction of business relationships with broad categories of customers by financial institutions, rather than analyzing and managing the specific risks associated with those customers. The common use of the term de-risking carries a negative connotation of "unnecessary exclusion".

The United States and its little buddies have not figured out how to de-risk.

The New York Times editorial said that de-risking requires difficult and trivial decisions and solutions, such as semiconductors, which semiconductors must be kept away from China? Another example is medical devices. Do all medical devices need to be produced outside of China? Risk management of social software, what can TikTok do to avoid the risk of being owned by a Chinese company?

How to get rid of the risk, people are worried, is Mr. Biden's understanding enough to make the final decision? The Democratic Party has their own opinions, and some professional doctors who are willing to sign urge Biden to take a health test in order to take responsibility for the entire United States.

Please remember, de-risking is not for the United States to show softness to China, let alone to make it superficial, but to avoid unbearable losses to the United States during the decoupling process, but to deal with China more accurately. Therefore, de-risking is smoother and more sophisticated than decoupling.

It may be more appropriate to translate de-risking as "orderly decoupling" and "precise pressure". Now the U.S. is mobilizing more forces to design and regulate China’s risks. What they are after is to take you to death, and the U.S. must get more benefits.

The G7 summit just ended yesterday, and the actions of the American gangsters have not changed at all. All preparations for the cold war and hot war against China are being stepped up. A subtle change in the wording does not reflect any real problems. We can no longer hold on to the United States. any fantasy.

The nature of the No. 1 imperialist will not change. Complying with him, pandering to him, and flattering him are nothing more than feeding a tiger with an arm and waiting to be killed. For example, when increasing the holdings of treasury bonds, the old lady Yellen took off her dentures and smiled out of shape. She thinks you are stupid, thinking that you have been limp by the dazzling words and actions of the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

Meta因将向美国传送用户数据，被罚款13亿美元。

当地时间5月22日，《华尔街日报》援引知情人士消息称，脸书（Facebook）的母公司Meta（Nasdaq：META）因将用户信息发送至美国，被欧盟隐私监管机构罚款13亿美元，超过2021年亚马逊的8亿美元罚款额。这笔罚款是根据欧洲标志性数据隐私法《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR）所征收的最高额罚款。

该裁决结果预计将于当地时间22日晚些时候宣布。《华尔街日报》认为，此裁决将为美国政府敲定一项协议带来压力，该协议允许Meta和数千家跨国公司继续向美国发送此类信息。

欧洲数据保护委员会（EDPB）主席Andrea Jelinek表示，Meta的侵权行为“非常严重，因为它涉及系统性、重复性和持续性的数据转移”。

Jelinek在一份声明中指出，脸书在欧洲有数百万用户，因此传输的个人数据量无比庞大……这一史无前例的罚款向相关组织发出强烈信号，即严重的侵权行为会产生深远的影响。”

除罚款外，该裁定还命令Meta在六个月内停止向美国发送欧洲脸书用户的信息，并删除已经发送的数据。不过Meta表示，如果华盛顿在此之前曾与欧盟达成跨大西洋协议允许数据转移，则其不需要进行这一步操作。

Meta表示将对该裁决提出上诉，并向法院寻求暂停执行命令。“这项决定是有缺陷的、不合理的，并且为其他公司在欧盟和美国之间传输数据树立了一个危险的先例。”Meta在一篇博客中回应道。

来源：Meta官网

“如果无法跨境传输数据，互联网可能会按照国家和地区分割成不同的孤岛，这会限制全球经济，阻止不同国家的公民访问共享服务。”Meta写道，“其首要任务是确保用户、广告商、客户和合作伙伴可以继续使用脸书，同时确保他们的数据安全无虞。”

这项裁决仅适用于脸书，不适用于Meta旗下的其他app如Instagram和WhatsApp。根据Meta的说辞，其在欧盟拥有超过2.55亿脸书用户，近四分之一的收入来自整个欧洲地区。该公司表示，不会立即中断脸书在欧盟的服务。

与许多美国科技公司一样，Meta将数据从欧洲转移到美国，是为了给该公司在美国的主要数据中心以提供服务。一位知情人士透露，如果无法继续在美国存储用户数据，Meta可以尝试重新设计其系统，将欧洲用户的数据保存在欧洲目的，但这样的项目将极其复杂。

截至发稿，Meta美股盘前跌0.73%，报收243.84美元/股。

封杀中国经济阻止中国强国进程，这就是美国定义的所谓大国“竞争”的核心内容。尽管中美呈现出来的是“道不同不相为谋”，可似乎双方也正在达成一些“共识”。这个共识就是“斗而不破”。而另外一个“共识”就是都宁愿承担牺牲利益也要把对手拉下马。

美国要永久性独霸世界也好，基于实力领导世界也罢，都决定了不会允许任何国家的实力可以“比肩”。更不要说实现超越。永久性独霸世界，就意味着追求美国利益的最大化，也意味着美国要“长臂管辖”世界。

正因为形成了这样的战略思维或美国价值观，面对高速发展的中国自然既心虚也不快。也就总想变着法以美国国家安全受威胁挑战的名义进行战略打压。

中国发展速度越快，中国形势越好，美国就越是心虚恐惧，就越是要加强对中国的战略打压。为了实现战略打压的合理合法化，竟然想出了用“竞争”一词替代对抗。

对于中国来说，百年屈辱历史所总结出来的最大“真理”就是落后就要挨打。复兴中华民族伟大强国自然也就成为了百年不变的梦想。

而在经历了百年的艰苦奋斗、探索追求和不懈努力，也终于找到了复兴强国的道路方向。新中国建立74年特别是改革开放这40年的发展成就，不但改变了落后挨打的局面，也逐渐走向了世界强国之林。

目前，即是中国建设现代化中国的最后冲刺阶段，也是世界百年未有之大变局阶段。可以说形势环境对中国是越来越有利。

尽管中国承诺不争霸、不称霸，但不等于不要成为世界强国。也绝不允许霸权当道。更不允许任何势力任何事情打断中国复兴强国进程。

因此，美国是要竞争也好，对抗也罢，中国只能是奉陪到底。遇鬼杀鬼、遇魔杀魔是必然的选择。

而对于美国人来说，即使知道中国会遵守不争霸、不称霸的承诺，但中国的强国进程本身就是对美国霸权的最大威胁。

霸权不是中国的强国目标，却是美国的强国逻辑。中国距离强国目标越近，美国就越恐惧忧虑，对华打压就会越疯狂。这就是中国梦与美国梦的激烈碰撞。

然而，尽管急欲扼杀中国而后快，尽管美国的实力占优，可中国已经不是过去那个可以任人宰割的中国，世界也不是原来的那个“列强”任意妄为的世界。美国人心里很清楚，与中国全面冲突对抗的代价与后果。

因此，拜登政府就公开强调无意与中国冲突对抗，而是要与中国展开非常非常激烈的“竞争”。同时，还煞有介事地强调要与中国建立防冲突“护栏”。

美国对华战略的核心是“投资结盟对抗”三原则。投资自然是为了争取更多战略资源和积极的战略部署。结盟则是为了壮大反华势力以群殴中国。准备好了之后自然就是与中国冲突对抗了。

也就是说，美国目前还没有做好与中国冲突对抗的战略准备。或者说自认目前的对抗既占不了便宜，也承受不起损失。因此，也就想来一个“打谈结合”，步步紧逼步步为营，一点一点战略蚕食中国的核心利益。把中国挤到犄角旮旯难以反抗。

打压自然是为了取得战略上的主动，也就是为“对话”增添筹码。而对话则是为了稳住并诱使中国不做出强烈的反制。最大程度上减少制造冲突对抗所要承受的代价。

然而，强调对话，既暴露出美国的虚伪，也暴露出美国的心虚。难怪毛主席早就看透了美国这只纸老虎的本质。

对中国来说，不管是实力的因素，还是发展的因素，又或是全球发展观和治理观，都决定了中国不希望与美国走向冲突对抗。

也就是说，避免冲突对抗，也就是“斗而不破”，这也确实成为了双方目前的“共识”。

尽管双方都不想或都在避免冲突对抗，可美国视中国发展壮大为美国最大的安全威胁，而中国的核心利益与发展利益是绝不允许侵犯。“核心利益”之争双方都不会让步，重要的是美国在步步紧逼。这就形成了打压与反制，再打压再反制的恶性循环。

一方面决定了对抗不断升级，很容易引发意外的冲突。另一方面，双方也都在承受对抗的损失。

美国视中国为霸权的最大威胁，自然就要不惜一切手段和代价的打压。也就是不惜牺牲美国的利益来扼杀中国。而美国的霸道，也已经成为了中国复兴强国梦的最大障碍，牺牲发展也要把美国拉下霸权宝座，也是一种无奈的选择。

因此，目前中美双方实际上已经认可了牺牲利益或付出代价也要把对方“拉下马”，这也可以算是中美的另一个重要“共识”了。

其实，中美双方在世界局势的认定问题上也早就形成了共识。中国明确判断，世界正处于百年未有之大变局时期。而美国尽管不承认这是百年未有之大变革时期，却也明确指出，大国竞争已经取代了后冷战秩序。

后冷战秩序，既是冷战后美国一超独大的时期，也就是美国独霸世界时期。而美国是要与中国竞争重建世界秩序的战略优势。也就是间接认可了世界正处于百年未有之大变局时期的战略判断了。

竞争是资本主义的核心本质之一。而同时也是中国特色社会主义的一个重要内容。大国竞争是不可避免的。问题的关键是合理合法的竞争，而不是恶意打压式竞争。

竞争的规则是世界规则不是美国规则。重建的秩序是平等的世界秩序，而不是体现美国至上的世界秩序。

竞争也好，对抗也罢，中美目前是各有各的优劣。谁对谁都没有形成压倒的优势。

美国的最大优势是实力占先。这一点是毋庸质疑。然而，实力优劣却并非是决定战略角逐胜负的唯一因素。

从国际形势发展和两国的具体情况综合来看，中国目前已经占得了一定的优势或先机。

首先，是美国自己率先打破了自己建立和维持的旧有的世界秩序规则。正所谓破旧才能立新。旧有的秩序规则体现的是美国利益的最大化。中国要主动建立一个能够体现自身利益的新秩序，就必须先打破旧秩序。这是需要经历一番激烈的斗争的，历史上大多都是通过战争来实现的。

然而，是美国自己打破了旧秩序，这省了中国不少的事。这使得美国已经拥有的霸权无法发挥最大作用。从战略角逐角度来说，美国首先就犯了一个重大的战略性错误。如果美国一味维护现行的秩序规则，中国要打破还真的费不小的劲。

其次，世界局势演变，已经不受美国的控制。或者说正在背离美国霸权的轨道。也就是中国所说的百年未有之大变局。

冷战后，维护多边主义推动全球化进程，以及建立多极世界格局的呼声就响起。而美国却是逆势奉行单边主义霸权路线。如今的美国不但破坏了世界秩序规则，更是逆势反全球化。不但严重破坏了世界的稳定和制造世界的分裂，还严重破坏了已经建立起来的世界产业链、供应链。这伤害的是包括美国在内的全世界的利益。

正所谓得道多助失道寡助。目前的美国是越来越孤立。不要说非西方或发展中国家不站队美国，就是美国的欧洲盟友，也在逐渐疏远美国。欧洲的独立自主意识越来越强，这是对美国霸权战略的一大打击。

而中国的发展观和全球治理观，正在被广泛的认可与接受。中国不仅已经成了世界经济的火车头，全球化的推动力，也正成为世界局势的稳定器。与逐渐走向孤立的美国相对应的是中国的“朋友圈”不断扩大。

正因为美国霸权越来越不得人心和不被接受，目前世界上正在兴起政治上的“去美国化”，也就是战略上的独立自主。也就是各世界各地都在推动去美国化的地缘政治改变。尤以东南亚和中东地区变化最快。

政治上去美国化的同时，世界也在兴起金融经济上的“去美元化”。而美元霸权是美国霸权的重要支柱之一。美元大厦将倾对美国的打击太大。

重要的是，相对应的就是人民币国际化脚步加速。中国不需要人民币取代美元，只想要美元霸权消失。建立一个平衡的世界金融体系。

其三，中国正处于上升期，而美国却进入了衰退期。历史的来看，发展崛起有一种内在的惯性定律，而衰败也有一种内在的惯性定律。崛起的惯性在于进入了正确的轨道，而衰退则是错误轨道的恶性倒退。

中国崛起的速度在加速，美国衰退的速度也在加速。重要的是都难以阻止。

中国政治稳定，团结一致。并已经打好了快速发展的坚实经济基础。复兴强国的梦的目标明确，意志坚定。而又顺应了世界变革的潮流。

美国则是处于严重的政治分裂和极化对立。经济结构严重失衡。社会危机四伏，价值观沦丧。战略思维混乱。明知霸权战略不可为而勉强为之，明知霸权时代已过却还要奉行霸道、霸凌政策。

美国的政治经济外交政策一切都是建立在霸权的基础之上。一旦霸权被削弱，一切内政外交战略都得推倒重来。可是美国不愿意承认霸权已失。自然也就难免失去了方向走在错误的道路之上回不了头。

因此，美国的衰退不仅是与中国“竞争”的失利，而是自身犯了巨大的战略错误。也可以说是美国衰败的惯性定律使然。打败美国的不是中国，而美国人自己。

总之，尽管中美都想通过激烈的竞争击败对手，可中美两国都太大，中美关系对世界也太过重要。一旦形成冲突对抗，就难免失控。这是双方都不愿意面对的也是无法承受的局面。斗而不破应当是双方的共识。但美国不接受中国复兴强国，中国不接受美国霸权控制。这又决定了中美都不会示弱妥协。激烈的争斗是不可避免的。也就是都在采取宁可牺牲利益也要把对手拉下马的打法。比的自然就不单纯是实力了，更多是在比意志力和承受力了。

崛起和衰退都有内在的惯性定律。中国已经形成了强大的崛起惯性，美国阻挡不了。而美国已经形成衰退惯性，美国自己刹不住倒退的车。

无论是拜登还是布林肯，都改口了，从原来的脱钩，脱脱脱一去625，不得不脱，只能快脱，到现在的“去风险”。这个改变相当微妙，但是十分坚决，美国上上下下的口气都从“全面脱钩”，调整为“去风险”。

美国为什么会这么快自我修正？

如果“脱钩”始自于特朗普和蓬佩奥的话，“去风险”则来自于那位前不久陪着马克龙来中国的“监访者”冯德莱恩。

冯德莱恩3月30日讲话当中提到，为什么欧洲没有响应自特朗普总统开始的脱钩呼吁，“与中国脱钩既不可行，也不符合欧洲的利益。”“我们的关系不是非黑即白的——我们的应对也不应该这样。这就是为什么我们需要专注于去风险，而不是脱钩。”

无论你对这个女人有什么样的看法，她这句话应该被肯定，这是个成年人应该有的认识，你不能非黑即白，那是幼儿园小班水平，简单二分法，连日常生活都不能应对，怎么能够处理这个世界上大国之间复杂的关系呢？

村里的老磨盘，搬了一下，没搬动。

地上一块石头，踢了一下，脚疼。

那还搬不搬呢？还踢不踢呢？

过去10年，中国对世界经济增长平均贡献率超过七国集团国家总和，中国市场水阔鱼大，凡与中国打交道，皆有钱挣，试探与中国脱钩，皆日子难熬，那还拖不拖呢？成年人即使不懂事儿，试错的本能也还有。

冯德莱恩讲完这番话之后，德国和法国外交官在国际场合强调了这个词。亚洲国家，例如新加坡，也开始对美国官员说，脱钩太过分了，会动摇几十年来的成功的经济一体化。欧洲也罢，亚洲也罢，人们害怕中美两大经济体彻底脱钩，撕裂这个世界，影响自己家里过日子。

美国国家安全顾问沙利文最先使用的这个词儿，4月27日，他在一个正式的场合讲道：“我们追求去风险，而不是脱钩，去风险从根本上意味着有弹性、有实效的供应链，确保我们不会被任何一个国家所胁迫。”

经济脱钩，改成去风险，一个背着，一个抱着，背着抱着一般沉，净想着自己合适，打定主意想弄死你，换了个姿势罢了。

美国财政部一如既往绕大弯儿：去风险是指金融机构不加区分地终止或限制与广泛类别客户的业务关系，而不是分析和管理与这些客户相关的具体风险。去风险一词通常的用途带有“不必要的排斥”这一负面含义。

美国及其小哥们并没有想好怎么个去风险法。

纽约时报的社评说，去风险需要艰难、琐碎的决策和解决方案，例如半导体，哪些半导体必须远离中国？再比如医疗器械，所有的医疗器械都需要在中国以外的地方生产吗？社交软件的风险管理，TikTok能做些什么，来规避被一家中国公司拥有的风险？

怎么个去风险，人们担心，拜登老爷子的理解力是否足以胜任最后的决策？民主党有他们自己的看法，一些愿意署名的专业医生敦促拜登去做健康检测，以期对整个美利坚负起责任来。

拜请各位记住，去风险并非美国对中国示软，更不是为了表面好听，而是为了脱钩过程中避免美国遭受不堪承受之损失，乃是为了更精准地收拾中国。故此，去风险比脱钩更圆滑更老道。

将去风险翻译为“有序脱钩”并“精准施压”，或许更恰当些。现在美国正在动员较多的力量，从事针对中国去风险的考量设计和监管拿捏，他们追求的是把你拿得死死的，而美国得到的好处必须更多。

昨天G7峰会刚刚开完，美国黑帮老大的做法一点也没有改变，针对中国磨刀霍霍冷战热战所有准备都在加紧进行，一个措词儿微妙改变，不反映什么实质问题，我们对美国不能再抱任何幻想。

头号帝国主义的本性是不会改变的，顺应他，迎合他，讨好他，无非以臂饲虎坐以待毙耳。譬如增持国债，耶伦老太太摘下假牙嘴笑得走型，她认为你傻，以为你被美国财政部和美联储眼花缭乱的说词和动作忽悠瘸了。