Why did it happen on 5.20 again?为什么又是发生在5.20这个日子
Bachmut is finally liberated on May 20, 2023.
remember? Last year today, May 20, 2022, it was Mariupol that was liberated by Russian troops.
Interesting, the date is set on May 20. "I love you"? Who loves who?
I don't know, I only saw cruel wars and killings, how can there be love. But Russia is just so naughty, or so cruel, and it chooses such a day.
Perhaps they wanted to express Russia's special love for Ukrainians of the same ancestry?
After all, Ukraine is a country with only 30 years of history. There was no Ukraine in history. It was Lenin, Stalin, Chirushchev and others who successively donated land until the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Only then did Ukraine exist.
I was thinking, Russia and Ukraine share the same language and culture, so why do we have to make two countries? It's fine to form two countries, why do we have to go to war to see each other, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties in Russia and hundreds of thousands in Ukraine?
Without the United States, would Russia and Ukraine have the situation of killing each other today?
In the previous articles, when I talked about Bakhmut many times, I directly said that Bakhmut had been liberated, even though I clearly knew that 1% of the territory was still defended by Ukraine. The reason why I say this is because I believe that there must be some reason why the remaining 1% of Russia has not been liberated for a long time, but this will never change the ending that Bahmut will be liberated throughout the country.
99% are liberated, leaving only 1% untouched, which is obviously abnormal.
The ridiculous thing is that after Bakhmut was liberated 99% of the territory, Ukraine was able to hold on to the remaining 1% for more than three months. Is it because Ukraine really believes that they can hold on, or is Russia really incapable of winning the last 1% of the area?
Obviously neither. It can only be said that Ukraine is really pitiful. In order to get assistance from the United States and the West, they cannot announce the fall of Bakhmut. Once the fall is announced, the United States and the West have no reason to continue to assist. Bahemut is an obvious strategic support point, and the loss of it means the end of the war on the eastern front, and it will soon turn to the war on the western front.
As for Russia, it is obviously not just for the purpose of occupying Bakhmut, but to use this meat grinder to squeeze the last drop of blood from Ukraine and squeeze as much assistance from NATO as possible.
Bakhmut is the watershed between the victory and defeat of the Russia-Ukraine War. Whether it is consumption or geostrategic structure, whoever loses Bachmut means losing strategic depth. The two sides have been fighting here for more than half a year, consuming each other's personnel and weapons and equipment. Whoever loses here will inevitably lose everything.
It is impossible for Ukraine to win, but Russia must win and is not in a hurry to win. Once Ukraine is lost here, the entire West will completely lose confidence. Russia does not need this kind of symbolic gimmick, what is needed is to make full use of Bakhmut's strategic position and the mentality of Ukraine and NATO, set this place as a strategic location for the meat grinder, and start a protracted meat grinder war here , to consume the vital forces of Ukraine and NATO.
Now, it's finally over. It ended when the G7 announced that it would further sanction Russia, and it ended when the G7 decided to assist Ukraine with F-16. Russia is very clear that they control the rhythm of the entire battlefield, when to do what, such as when to advance, when to retreat, and when to end a battle. Its goal is only one, to get NATO involved in the vortex and meat grinder of war as much as possible. Ukraine is welcome to invest more troops, and NATO is welcome to invest more in weapons and equipment. Anyway, if you don’t grind meat, how can you consume the other party’s vital strength?
The thing is obvious. Whether you can understand it is not a question of IQ, but a question of values. Those who stand up for the black, as long as they have values, don't want war damage and death, this is reality. On the one hand, they clamor that human rights are above all else, and that democracy and freedom are above all else. On the other hand, they demand that Ukraine continue to die, no matter how many people die, because what they want to defend is always more important than human life. Do you think this is sick?
Don't blame me for scolding you, you are really inferior to a bunch of beasts. Yes, things, not people.
Recently, the British "New Statesman" magazine interviewed former British Foreign Secretary Simon MacDonald on a series of hot topics such as the future of the United Kingdom, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and Sino-US relations. However, Macdonald, a senior diplomat who has worked in the British foreign affairs department for 40 years, told the truth that even the reporters who interviewed him were surprised.
(Screenshot from an article in the British "New Statesman" magazine, the same below)
'Game over for the UK'
Why has the United Kingdom's performance in the international community become more and more crotch these years, and the leaders who were supposed to lead the country on the right path stepped down one by one in a short period of time, and behaved like clowns?
In an exclusive interview with The New Statesman, Macdonald spoke bluntly about this issue and pointed to the crux of it.
He said that the careers of British politicians have been greatly accelerated. In the past, after entering the British Parliament, a politician had to go through a long period of experience and accumulate enough experience to become a minister or even a leader. After just a few years in office, even without any experience, you can become a minister and even a leader who decides the fate of Britain.
At the same time, Macdonald also said that as far as the British foreign affairs department is concerned, the current British Foreign Secretary's focus on diplomatic work has also changed.
He took former British Prime Minister Truss, who once served as the British Foreign Secretary, as an example, saying that Truss is more concerned about how to manage her personal image through social accounts, so that she can gain enough popularity to become the British Conservative Party The leader of the party, so she is more concerned about which picture of herself looks better than British foreign policy.
However, MacDonald also said that the decline of Britain's international status in recent years is not just a matter of the recent foreign ministers, but also has deeper reasons, such as China, India, Japan, Brazil and Australia and other countries. The status has been greatly improved in the past 20 years, and the United Kingdom now has a population of only 70 million and the decision to leave the European Union a few years ago.
"The problem with the UK is that we still want to compete in national hard power, but we no longer have the resources to support that competition," he said.
As for Britain's current role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such as providing weapons to Ukraine, etc., MacDonald believes that this is just a manifestation of Britain's remaining "soft power". He believes that the United Kingdom is now only a "soft power player" on the international stage. Although it can still attract the attention of the international community by training soldiers and providing weapons to Ukraine, it is no longer the same as when he first entered the British foreign affairs department in the 1980s. In that way, not only has nearly 100 warships, but also can independently launch a war like the Falklands Sea Battle.
Today, Britain has less than 40 warships, and it has basically become a follower of the US military.
"Should not be an enemy of China"
But even in the area of soft power, Britain's prospects are not looking good.
Macdonald said that before the UK left the EU, the EU could serve as a strategic direction for itself. But after Brexit, the only way for the UK to follow the United States is now. Moreover, the United Kingdom itself lacks interest in other options. For example, it does not want to become a close partner with China, and feels that it is meaningless to mix with other English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, because it cannot affect the international situation.
In MacDonald’s view, he believes that the way out for Britain should be not to follow the United States together with other medium-sized countries, for example, it should no longer follow the United States to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that are meaningless to Britain, and it should not be an enemy of China Or send warships to the Indo-Pacific region or even the South China Sea.
In particular, MacDonald believes that Taiwan will be a test of whether Britain can choose a new worldview, and a test of how Britain develops its relationship with the United States. He also specifically mentioned that when the United States fought the Vietnam War, the United Kingdom did not send troops to Vietnam.
In addition, he Macdonald also boldly stated that the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is inseparable from the United States' plan to let Georgia and Ukraine gradually join NATO, because this approach is regarded as a hostile act by Russia, while the United Kingdom is considered by the United States. rolled in.
"The United States will not go to war with China, but what about the future?"
Finally, MacDonald talked about whether the United States will go to war with China.
He said that he is very sure that the United States will not go to war with China at present, because whether it is the US Secretary of State Blinken or the CIA Director Burns, these senior officials responsible for US security issues know that the consequences of a war with China will be a "strategic disaster." ".
But he reminded again: But Burns also has to leave one day...
America is tense.
Just now, the negotiations on the US debt ceiling suddenly changed. On May 11, local time, the White House spokesman announced that the talks between US President Biden and high-level Congressional officials scheduled to discuss the debt ceiling issue on the 12th have been postponed, and the two sides agreed to hold a meeting next week. Once the negotiations are deadlocked again, Biden may cancel next week's G7 summit trip.
Facing the dangerous debt situation, Wall Street giants have begun emergency preparations. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently warned that as the US sovereign debt is getting closer to default, the market will gradually panic. Dimon further revealed that JPMorgan Chase has assets of approximately US$3.7 trillion (approximately RMB 26 trillion) and is preparing for the risk of US sovereign debt default. JPMorgan's war room division will hold one meeting a day starting May 21 and will move to three meetings a day thereafter.
Obviously, the U.S. government is at a very critical moment, and some Wall Street analysts even believe that the possibility of another downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating cannot be ruled out. The latest report by Whalen Global Advisors bank analyst R. Christopher Whalen believes that the amount of debt borrowed by the United States itself is enough to cause its credit rating to be downgraded, and the increase in debt repayment costs is also enough to justify a rating action.
White House emergency declaration
According to the latest news from Reuters, on May 11 local time, the White House spokesman announced that the talks between US President Biden and high-level Congressional officials scheduled to discuss the debt ceiling on the 12th have been postponed, and the two sides agreed to hold a meeting next week.
The White House said earlier that White House officials and House Speaker McCarthy, House Democratic leader Jeffries, Senate Democratic leader Schumer, and Senate Republican leader McConnell held meetings on the 10th and 11th to discuss raising the debt ceiling. possibility.
Biden aides have begun discussing ways to limit federal government spending, while talks to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a catastrophic default are quietly underway, according to people familiar with the matter.
People familiar with the matter further said that White House officials acknowledged that if a deal is to be reached, the White House must accept some spending cuts or strict restrictions on future spending, while the climate bill passed by Biden in 2022 is believed to have to be retained.
On May 12, U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen stated at the G7 Hiroshima Summit in Japan that there is no good solution to the debt limit problem other than raising the debt ceiling.
Earlier, the U.S. Treasury Department has warned that if the U.S. Congress fails to reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling, the U.S. may default on its debt as early as June 1.
According to the report, according to the plan, Biden will leave the United States next week and go to Japan to attend the G7 summit. Before the deadline, Biden hopes to reach an agreement with Congress on raising the debt ceiling.
Once the negotiations between Biden and the leaders of the two parties come to an impasse again, Biden's trip to Asia may be cancelled. According to Agence France-Presse, Biden said on the 9th that if there is no progress in the debt ceiling negotiations with Congress, he may cancel the trip to the G7 summit.
26 trillion giant nervous
On May 11, US Eastern Time, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned in an interview that as the US sovereign debt is getting closer to default, the market will gradually panic. He also warned that if the US sovereign debt did fall into default, it would be a "potential disaster" for the United States.
With U.S. lawmakers expected to be forced to respond to rising external concerns as the U.S. default deadline looms, Dimon said he reckons the U.S. will be able to avoid the worst-case scenario of actually creating debt breach of contract.
Dimon warned of dire consequences if the U.S. Congress fails to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, causing the U.S. to default on its debt.
He believes that once there is a sovereign debt default in the United States, its impact will affect the entire financial world, affecting "contracts, collateral, clearinghouses, and certainly customers around the world."
Therefore, in interviews, Dimon frequently urged politicians from the two major political parties in the United States to make compromises as soon as possible to avoid disastrous results.
At the same time, in the face of potentially huge risks, JPMorgan Chase is stepping up preparations for prevention.
Dimon said that JPMorgan Chase, as the largest bank in the United States, has assets of approximately US$3.7 trillion (approximately RMB 26 trillion), and has been preparing for the risk of US sovereign debt default.
Previously, JPMorgan's so-called war room division had been meeting once a week, but from around May 21, it will be meeting once a day, and then three times a day, Dimon said.
U.S. sovereign rating 'emergency'
Currently, the U.S. government is at a very critical moment. Some Wall Street analysts believe that the possibility of another downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating cannot be ruled out.
The latest report by Whalen Global Advisors bank analyst R. Christopher Whalen believes that the amount of debt borrowed by the United States itself is enough to cause its credit rating to be downgraded, and the increase in debt repayment costs is also enough to justify a rating action.
Looking back at history, in 2012, S&P Ratings lowered the U.S. sovereign credit rating for the first time in history. On August 2 of that year, when the U.S. Treasury Department was about to run out of funds and triggered a debt default at the last moment of the X-day, S&P lowered the U.S. sovereign credit rating from AAA to AAA. Downgraded to AA+ with a negative outlook.
The current situation seems to be more severe than in 2012. First, let’s look at the absolute size of the U.S. government’s debt. The U.S. government’s debt has soared from $15 trillion in 2011 to $31 trillion; the ratio of total U.S. federal debt to GDP has soared from 65% in 2011 to 95%. .
Looking at the cost of debt repayment, in 2011, the total interest payment on US debt was 425 billion U.S. dollars; in 2022, this figure reached 710 billion U.S. dollars; in the first quarter of 2023, the annualized interest payment was as high as 929 billion U.S. dollars. This also makes the US government's interest payments almost equal to defense spending.
In response, S&P warned that it could downgrade the U.S. credit rating if unexpected negative political developments put pressure on U.S. debt-servicing capacity. This box will be ticked as soon as the debt ceiling cannot be raised, or there is some form of default.
In addition, Fitch also said that as long as the US Congress resolves the debt ceiling impasse without damaging financial markets, it will maintain the US AAA rating. But if default becomes a serious risk, America's rating may be placed on negative watch and further rating action may be considered.
It should be pointed out that the "headquarters" of the three major international rating giants (S&P, Moody's and Fitch) are all in the United States, which means that once the three major rating agencies "do something" with the US sovereign rating, the consequences will be very serious.
巴赫穆特终于解放了，时间是2023年5月20日。
还记得不？去年今日，2022年5月20日，俄罗斯军队解放的是马里乌波尔。
有意思吧，日子都定在5月20日。“我爱你”？谁爱谁啊？
不知道，我只看到了残酷的战争和杀戮，何来爱啊。可俄罗斯就是这么调皮，或者是如此残忍，偏偏要选择这样的日子。
或许，他们想要表达俄罗斯对同宗同祖的乌克兰人特别的爱？
毕竟，乌克兰是一个只有30年历史的国家。历史上并无乌克兰，是列宁、斯大林、赤鲁晓夫等人相续赠送土地，直到苏联解体，这才有了乌克兰的。
我就在想，俄乌同宗同祖同语言文化，为什么非要弄成两个国家呢？形成两个国家也就算了，为什么一定要兵戈想见，导致俄罗斯死伤几万人，乌克兰死伤几十万人？
假如没有美国，俄罗斯和乌克兰会出现今天这种相互残杀的局面么？
在前期的文章中，我多次讲到巴赫穆特时，都是直接讲巴赫穆特已经解放，尽管我分明知道还有1%的领土被乌克兰死守。之所以这么讲，是因为我相信俄罗斯留下1%迟迟不解放，一定有某种原因，但这绝不会改变巴赫穆特一定会被全境解放的结局。
99%都解放了，独留下1%不动它，这显然是不正常的。
可笑的是，巴赫穆特被解放了99%的领土之后，乌克兰居然真能一直坚守剩下的1%面积长达三个多月。是因为乌克兰真相信他们能够坚守，还是俄罗斯真没有能力拿下这最后的1%面积？
显然都不是。只能说，乌克兰是真的很可怜，为了得到美国和西方的援助，他们不能宣布巴赫穆特失守。一旦宣布失守，美国和西方就没有理由继续援助了。巴赫穆特是显然的战略支撑点，失守就意味着东线战争结束，很快会转向西线战事。
俄罗斯呢，显然不是仅仅以占领巴赫穆特为目的，而是要用这个绞肉机绞尽乌克兰最后一滴血，绞尽北约尽可能多的援助。
巴赫穆特就是俄乌战争胜负的分水岭。消耗也好，地缘战略格局也好，谁失了巴赫穆特，就意味着失去战略纵深。双方在这里打了大半年时间，就是消耗彼此的人员和武器装备。谁在这里输了，谁就必然会满盘皆输。
乌克兰是想赢不可能，俄罗斯是必赢而不急于赢。乌克兰一旦丢了这里，整个西方就会完全丧失信心。俄罗斯不需要这种象征意义的噱头，要的是充分利用巴赫穆特的战略地位以及乌克兰和北约的心态，把这里设定为绞肉机的战略重地，在这里开始一场旷日持久的绞肉战，以消耗乌克兰和北约的有生力量。
如今，终于结束了。结束在G7宣称要进一步制裁俄罗斯之时，结束在G7决定给乌克兰援助F-16之时。俄罗斯很清楚，他们掌握着整个战场的节奏，什么时候做什么，比如什么时候前进，什么时候撤退，什么时候结束一个战役。其目标只有一个，尽可能多地让北约卷入战争的漩涡和绞肉机。欢迎乌克兰更多地投入兵力，欢迎北约更多地投入武器装备，反正不绞肉，又如何能消耗对方的有生力量呢？
事情是明摆着的，能否看懂不是智商问题，是价值观问题。那些挺乌者，只要价值观，不要战损和死亡，这就是现实。他们一面叫嚣说人权大于一切，叫嚣民主自由高于一切，一面又要求乌克兰不停地送死，死再多人都不在惜，因为他们要捍卫的永远比人命更重要。你说这特么是不是有病啊？
不要怪我骂你们，你们真的是一群畜生不如的东西。是的，是东西，不是人。
近日，英国《新政治家》杂志就英国的前途、俄乌冲突和中美关系等一系列热点话题，专访了英国前外交大臣西蒙·麦克唐纳。然而，麦克唐纳这名在英国外事部门工作了40年的资深外交官，却说出了一番让采访他的记者都感到意外的实情。
（截图来自英国《新政治家》杂志的文章，下同）
“对英国而言，游戏已经结束了”
为何这些年英国在国际社会上的表现越来越拉胯，本该引领国家走向正途的领导人，却一个个在短时间内就下台，更表现得如同小丑一般？
在《新政治家》的专访中，麦克唐纳就直言不讳地谈及了这个问题，并直指其中的症结。
他说，如今英国政客的仕途被大大提速了，以前一个政客在进入英国的议会后，得经过长时间的历练，积累起足够的经验，才能去成为大臣乃至领导人，可如今的政客却在入仕短短几年后，在甚至没有任何经验的情况下，就能成为决定英国命运的大臣乃至领导人了。
同时，麦克唐纳还表示，就英国的外事部门而言，如今的英国外交大臣对于外交工作的侧重点也出现了转变。
他以曾担任过英国外交大臣的英国前首相特拉斯为例，称特拉斯更关心的是如何通过社交账号经营好自己的个人形象，好让她自己获得足够多的人气成为英国保守党的党首，所以与其关心英国的外交政策，她更关心的是自己的哪张照片更好看。
不过，麦克唐纳又说，英国近些年国际地位的陨落，并不仅仅只是近几任外交大臣的问题，还有更深层次的原因，比如中国、印度、日本、巴西乃至澳大利亚等其他国家国际地位在过去20年里的大大提升，又比如英国如今仅7000万的人口、前些年做出的脱离欧盟的决定。
“英国的问题是仍然想参与国家硬实力的角逐，但我们已经不再拥有去支撑这种竞争的资源了”，他说。
至于英国如今在俄乌冲突上扮演的角色，比如给乌克兰提供武器等等，麦克唐纳则认为这只是英国还剩下的“软实力”的体现。他认为英国如今只是国际舞台上的一个“软实力玩家”，虽然还能通过给乌克兰训练士兵和提供武器吸引国际社会的关注，但已经无法再像上世纪80年代他刚进入英国外事部门那会儿那样，不仅拥有近100艘战舰，而且能独立发起一场马岛海战那样的战争了。
如今英国的战舰只有不到40艘，而且基本上成为了美国军事上的跟班。
“不该与中国为敌”
但即便是在软实力领域，英国的前景也并不好看。
麦克唐纳说，原本英国在脱欧之前，还有欧盟可以作为自己的一个战略方向。但脱欧后，英国眼下只剩下跟着美国一条道能走了。而且英国自己也对其他的选项缺乏兴趣，比如既不想和中国成为紧密的伙伴，又觉得和澳大利亚、加拿大和新西兰等其他英语国家混在一起没啥意义，因为影响不了国际局势。
在麦克唐纳看来，他认为英国的出路应该是不与其他中型的国家一起跟着美国，，比如不应该再跟着美国去打阿富汗和伊拉克那些对英国没有意义的战争，不应该与中国为敌或是派军舰去印太地区乃至南海。
麦克唐纳尤其认为，台湾将成为英国能否选择一个新的世界观的考验，也是英国与美国如何发展关系的一次考验。他还特别提到，当年美国打越南战争的时候，英国就没有派兵去越南。
另外，他麦克唐纳还大胆地表示，如今俄乌冲突的爆发与美国想让格鲁吉亚和乌克兰逐步加入北约的计划脱不了关系，因为这种做法在俄罗斯看来就是敌对行为，而英国则被美国卷了进去。
“美国不会与中国开战，可将来呢？”
最后，麦克唐纳谈到了美国会不会与中国开战的问题。
他表示自己很确信美国目前不会和中国开战，因为不论是美国国务卿布林肯还是美国中情局的局长伯恩斯，这些负责美国安全问题的高官都清楚与中国开战的后果将是一场“战略灾难”。
但他又提醒说：可伯恩斯也有要走人的一天……
全美紧张。
刚刚，美国债务上限谈判突然发生变数。当地时间5月11日，美国白宫发言人宣布，美国总统拜登与国会高层原定于12日举行的讨论债务上限问题的谈判已被推迟，双方同意在下周举行会议。一旦谈判再度陷入僵局，拜登可能会取消下周的G7峰会行程。
面对危险的债务局面，华尔街巨头已开始紧急准备，摩根大通CEO杰米·戴蒙最新警告称，随着美国主权债务越来越逼近违约，市场将一步步陷入恐慌。戴蒙进一步透露，摩根大通拥有约3.7万亿美元（约合人民币26万亿元）的资产，正在为美国主权债违约的风险做准备。摩根大通的作战室部门将从5月21日起，每天召开1次会议，之后还将改为每天召开3次会议。
很显然，美国政府已处于非常关键的时刻，甚至有华尔街分析人士认为，不排除会再度出现美国主权信用评级被调降的可能。Whalen Global Advisors银行分析师R. Christopher Whalen的最新报告认为，美国举债的数量本身就已经足以令其信用评级被下调了，偿债成本的增加也足以成为采取评级行动的理由。
据路透社最新消息，当地时间5月11日，美国白宫发言人宣布，美国总统拜登与国会高层原定于12日举行的讨论债务上限问题的谈判已被推迟，双方同意在下周举行会议。
白宫于早些时候曾表示，白宫官员和众议院议长麦卡锡、众议院民主党领袖杰弗里斯、参议院民主党领袖舒默、参议院共和党领袖麦康奈尔在10日和11日举行了会议，讨论提高债务上限的可能性。
知情人士透露，拜登的助手们已开始讨论限制联邦政府支出的方式，而提高债务上限以避免灾难性违约的谈判也正在悄悄进行。
知情人士进一步表示，白宫官员承认，如果要达成协议，白宫必须接受一些削减支出或对未来支出进行严格限制的方案，而拜登2022年通过的气候法案被认为必须获得保留。
5月12日，美国财长耶伦在日本举行的G7广岛峰会上表示，除了提高债务上限，没有好的解决债务限制问题的办法。
此前，美国财政部已经警告称，如果美国国会无法就提高债务上限达成协议，美国可能最早于6月1日出现债务违约。
报道称，按照计划，拜登将于下周离开美国，前往日本参加七国集团峰会。在最后期限到来之前，拜登希望能够与国会就提高债务上限一事达成一致。
一旦拜登与两党领袖的谈判再度陷入僵局，拜登的亚洲行或将取消。据法新社消息，拜登9日表示，如果与国会的债务上限谈判没有取得进展，他可能会取消此次G7峰会行程。
美东时间5月11日，摩根大通CEO杰米·戴蒙（Jamie Dimon）在接受采访时警告，随着美国主权债务越来越逼近违约，市场将一步步陷入恐慌。他还警告称，假如美国主权债真的陷入违约，对美国来说将是“潜在的灾难”。
戴蒙表示，随着美债违约期限逼近，外部担忧情绪不断加重，美国国会议员们预计将被迫做出应对，因此他估计，美国将能够避免出现最糟糕的情况——即真的出现债务违约。
戴蒙警告称，如果美国国会不能提高美国债务上限，导致美国出现债务违约，将会出现可怕的后果。
他认为，一旦美国出现主权债违约，其影响将波及整个金融世界，影响“合约、抵押品、清算所，并肯定影响到世界各地的客户”。
因此，戴蒙在采访中频频敦促美国两大政党的政界人士尽快做出妥协，避免出现灾难性的结果。
同时，面对潜在的巨大风险，摩根大通正在加紧防范的准备。
戴蒙表示，摩根大通作为美国最大的银行，拥有约3.7万亿美元（约合人民币26万亿元）的资产，一直在为美国主权债违约的风险做准备。
戴蒙透露，此前，摩根大通所谓的作战室部门一直是每周召开一次会议，但从5月21日左右，将改为每天召开一次会议，之后还将改为每天召开三次会议。
当前，美国政府已经处于非常关键的时刻，有华尔街分析家认为，不排除会再度出现美国主权信用评级被调降的可能。
Whalen Global Advisors银行分析师R. Christopher Whalen的最新报告认为，美国举债的数量本身就已经足以令其信用评级被下调了，偿债成本的增加也足以成为采取评级行动的理由。
回顾历史，2012年，标普评级有史以来首次下调美国主权信用评级，当年8月2日，美国财政部资金即将耗尽、触发债务违约X日的最后时刻，标普将美国主权信用评级从AAA下调至AA+，展望为“负面”。
当前的情况，似乎比2012年更为严峻。首先来看，美国政府的债务绝对规模，美国政府的债务规模从2011年的15万亿美元激增至31万亿美元；美国联邦债务总额占GDP的比例已经从2011年的65%激增至95%。
再看偿债成本，2011年，美国债务的利息支付总额为4250亿美元；2022年，这一数字达到7100亿美元；2023年第一季度的年化利息支出更是高达9290亿美元。这也使得，美国政府的利息支付几乎与国防开支持平。
对此，标普警告称，如果意外的负面政治发展对美国偿债能力构成压力，可能会调降美国的信用评级。一旦不能提高债务上限，或者出现某种形式的违约，便会立即勾选这一选项。
另外，惠誉也表示，只要美国国会在不损害金融市场的情况下解决债务上限僵局，其将维持美国AAA评级。但如果违约成为一个严重的风险，美国的评级可能会被列入负面观察，并可能考虑采取进一步的评级行动。
需要指出的是，国际三大评级巨头（标普、穆迪及惠誉）的“大本营”都在美国，意味着，一旦三大评级机构对美国主权评级“动手”，后果将会非常严重。
评论
发表评论