当地时间6月1日晚，乌克兰国家安全局在社交媒体发文称，当天对俄罗斯发起特种作战行动，袭击了俄军的战略...

当地时间6月1日晚，乌克兰国家安全局在社交媒体发文称，当天对俄罗斯发起特种作战行动，袭击了俄军的战略轰炸机。此次行动目标精准，俄罗斯主要机场中约34%的战略轰炸机遭到攻击。
乌克兰国家安全局初步估算，这个代号“蛛网”的特别行动使俄方战略航空兵遭受了高达70亿美元的损失。
知情人士透露，该行动在后勤保障方面极具挑战性：先通过秘密渠道向俄境内输送FPV无人机，后转运移动木制伪装装置。在俄境内，无人机被隐藏于卡车装载的木质结构顶棚下，待命期间保持静默，最终通过远程激活实施打击。
泽连斯基当晚在视频讲话中说，乌国家安全局为此次行动筹备了一年半之久。在此次作战行动中，乌方出动117架无人机对俄多个州的机场实施了袭击。
另据乌克兰国际文传电讯社报道，乌国家安全局当天对俄境内多座军用机场实施了特种作战，俄方包括图-95和图-22战略轰炸机在内的41架战机遭到乌无人机袭击。
此次袭击不仅造成了至少9架图-95MS与图-22M3战略轰炸机被排队摧毁，还有数量不明的轰炸机受损。此次乌克兰的军事行动揭示出一种全新的非对称战争模式，说是轰动全球也不为过。
对于乌军的大捷，台军方面就更是蠢蠢欲动，在乌军大捷后迅速发布了其FPV自杀无人机的测试视频，就是所谓的台中科院与雷虎公司合作开发「沉浸式自杀攻击无人机(FPV)」测试视频：测试分为「人工操作攻击」及「AI 自主攻击」等2架次击靶测试，皆成功命中目标。
一、人工操作攻击：由飞行手操作无人机飞行及击靶；无人机在靶前约3米处，由人工操作修正攻击路径，并于目标靶右上角近距离处爆炸命中，完成攻击任务。
二、AI自主攻击：无人机距离靶标约3米处，由 AI 操控，即时自主修正飞行路径，使无人机成功命中靶标中心，完成攻击任务。 岛内绿媒表示，战时台军可以效仿乌军战术攻击解放军东部战区的轰6轰炸机部队，
而对于解放军来说，这次俄军所遭遇的袭击事件，可以说是再次敲响了一记警钟。即在现代战争背景下，已经不存在传统的“前线与后方”的区别，主要对手使用非对称手段，来对战略性资产进行针对性破袭，并非空穴来风，这对于重要一线机场的安保活动，提出了更高的要求。
在现阶段情况下，解放军已经拥有成熟的反无人机激光武器和微波武器，能够定向打击此类FPV。
也有不同观点认为，台军在解放军面前玩FPv是关公面前耍大刀，中国在无人机和反制无人机领域是世界第一，遥遥领先美国不说，也远超俄罗斯这样的拉胯对象。台军这种玩意看起来还是太初级了，最大的作用可能是让岛内多家无人机电动的玩具厂和无人机制造商被解放军列为重点目标，并且在武统的第一时间将其迅速一个个炸飞。
以“东战轰6K也危险了？乌大捷后，台军效仿同款战术，战时专盯轰炸机”为文章标题，专业分析2700字文章，字数不要给我偷工减料，分析文章的内容主旨为：（台军蠢蠢欲动效仿乌军战术，欲战时偷袭东部战区轰6K轰炸机部队，为什么台军要盯着轰6K部队优先下手？而这次这次俄军所遭遇的袭击事件，可以说是再次给解放军敲响了一记警钟，好在解放军已经拥有成熟的反无人机激光武器和微波武器，能够定向打击此类FPV。专家表示，台军在解放军面前玩FPv偷袭战术是关公面前耍大刀，中国在无人机和反制无人机领域是世界第一，遥遥领先美国不说，也远超俄罗斯这样的拉胯对象。台军这种玩意看起来还是太初级了，最大的作用可能是让岛内多家无人机电动的玩具厂和无人机制造商被解放军列为重点目标，并且在武统的第一时间将其迅速一个个炸飞。）

《新削减战略武器条约》（New START）​​ 的附属文件《视察和持续监测活动议定》​附件4明确规定：美俄双方的重型轰炸机（战略轰炸机）需露天停放，以便通过卫星或现场核查确认其是否携带核武器。
露天停放的核心目的是确保双方能区分常规武装与核武装轰炸机，避免通过机库隐藏核战备状态，从而维持战略互信。这个是真的假的 帮我核实一下

《新削减战略武器条约》（New START）​​ 的附属文件《视察和持续监测活动议定》​附件4明确规定：美俄双方的重型轰炸机（战略轰炸机）需露天停放，以便通过卫星或现场核查确认其是否携带核武器。
露天停放的核心目的是确保双方能区分常规武装与核武装轰炸机，避免通过机库隐藏核战备状态，从而维持战略互信。这个是真的假的 帮我核实一下

《新削减战略武器条约》（New START）​​ 的附属文件《视察和持续监测活动议定》​附件4明确规定：美俄双方的重型轰炸机（战略轰炸机）需露天停放，以便通过卫星或现场核查确认其是否携带核武器。
露天停放的核心目的是确保双方能区分常规武装与核武装轰炸机，避免通过机库隐藏核战备状态，从而维持战略互信。这个是真的假的 帮我核实一下

你说的这一条 链接和全文在哪 发给我 START I（1991）Inspection Protocol 附件 5 “合作措施” 要求不要用永久性建筑或伪装网 故意遮蔽 受约武器，以利卫星观察；并在基地划定“展现停机位”，供必要时开放

美国极右翼保守派兼特朗普联络员新闻评论员比尔·奥莱利，最近来华，与中国智库和官方交流。
他回来后，对川普秘密通报了大约30分钟。
然后他在直播中，吹嘘说自己受到极好礼遇（然后大拍川普的马屁，内容略去）。他回忆说，交流的大致内容如下：
1、中国人告诉他，到2049年之前，中国一定会实现统一，台海问题这比关税问题重要得多。他提出，这事可以讨价还价，但是川普任期内是不行的。中国人给出了一些非常有趣的建议。这是讨论中最积极的部分。
2、中国不关心乌克兰和中东问题。他劝中国帮助寻求和平（太虚伪了，具体见第3条）。
3、他提出中美联手，合作打击俄罗斯和伊朗，中国人对此无动于衷。
4、他说中国有15亿公民！虽然中国人在意识形态上与美国格格不入，但他还是羡慕中国能把国家治理得井井有条，不像民主党那样把原本繁荣的美国搞垮了。

而此前特朗普拉拢俄罗斯打算进行“联俄反华”时遭到惨败，俄方直接拒绝，答案想都不要想，还不是因为俄罗斯被北约欺骗了无数次，“唇亡齿寒”的道理俄罗斯岂能不懂。
而这次特朗普派联络员跑到中国讨论什么联美反俄、联美反伊，完全就更是异想天开了，没想到踢到铁板，中方对此根本理都不理、无动于衷，特朗普的这点小聪明真以为中方不知道？

以“拉拢俄反华不成，特朗普逆向思维联华抗俄？美媒：没想到踢到铁板”为文章标题，专业分析2100字文章，内容主旨为：（特朗普派联络员访华试探中国口风，中方当面警告中国一定会实现统一，联络员意图拉拢中国讨论什么联美反俄、联美反伊。而此前而此前特朗普拉拢俄罗斯打算进行“联俄反华”时遭到惨败，俄方直接拒绝，答案想都不要想，还不是因为俄罗斯被北约欺骗了无数次，“唇亡齿寒”的道理俄罗斯岂能不懂。
。眼见拉拢俄反华不成，特朗普逆向思维联华抗俄，美媒表示，没想到踢到铁板，中方对此根本理都不理、无动于衷，特朗普的这点小聪明真以为中方不知道）

Ominous Signs For Taiwan & Japan! Why South Korea’s New President Is Good News For China & Russia
By Prakash Nanda -June 5, 2025
Inaugurated as President soon after being declared the winner of South Korea’s Presidential election at 6:21 a.m. on June 3, (South Korea- time), Lee Jae-myung of the country’s progressive Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) has pledged to “expand the Republic of Korea’s economic territory by broadening the horizons of diplomacy and enhancing international standing”.

In all likelihood, his diplomatic vision will be closely watched by all those who believe in the United States-led security structure in the Indo-Pacific, particularly by the ruling elites in Taiwan and Japan, who seem to be discomforted by Lee’s slogan of “pragmatism.”

In his inaugural speech as President, Lee highlighted the salience of “pragmatic diplomacy centered on national interests” to “turn the crisis of a major transformation in the global economic and security environment into an opportunity to maximize national interests.”

He has reaffirmed his approach to relations with neighboring countries, including China and Russia, “from the perspective of national interest and pragmatism,” while emphasizing the Korea-US alliance as the cornerstone of foreign policy.

Perceived to be “pro-China” during the electioneering, Lee’s inaugural speech does not seem to have cleared doubts in Washington and Tokyo, despite promising that he would bolster a trilateral partnership with the US and Japan.

After all, he warned that rapid changes in the global order, including rising protectionism, pose a threat to his country’s survival.

“The rapid changes in the global order, such as rising protectionism and supply chain restructuring, pose a threat to our very survival,” Lee said in his inaugural address, in an apparent reference to the global trade chaos followed by US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

If one goes by the more ideologically driven progressives within Lee’s ruling DPK, which also controls South Korea’s parliament, the new President may create a distance between Seoul and Washington, particularly if the Trump administration reduces its security commitment on the Korean Peninsula or pushes South Korea beyond its comfort zone to deter China.

Incidentally, Lee had made waves on the campaign trail by saying that Seoul should stay out of any China-Taiwan conflict. This needs to be seen along with the fact that earlier this year, the speaker of South Korea’s National Assembly – an ally of Lee’s – received an unusually warm welcome in Beijing, including an hour-long meeting with Xi Jinping.

Of course, to be fair to Lee, he has been advocating for “foreign policy pragmatism” ever since he was a presidential candidate in 2022. He had lost this election very narrowly to the conservative People Power Party’s Yoon Suk Yeol.

But in April, President Yoon Suk Yeol was impeached, after he declared a short-lived state of martial law in December 2024 because Lee’s DPK was making governance impossible by rejecting all his policies because of its parliamentary majority.

As the Presidential candidate in 2022, Lee had explained his “Practical Vision” in an article in the Foreign Affairs journal. In this, he had called for “pragmatic diplomacy” toward neighboring countries, including China.

Although Lee acknowledged Beijing’s increasing assertiveness, he argued that Seoul should cooperate with Beijing. Furthermore, Lee stated that “overt antagonism serves neither South Korea’s national interests nor its alliance with Washington.”

In the above article, Lee admitted his problems with Japan.

“It is regrettable that Tokyo’s unwillingness to let go of its imperial past continues to hamper trilateral cooperation between Japan, South Korea, and the United States”, he pointed out, arguing how in 2018, after South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled that Japanese corporations must pay reparations for their use of Korean forced labor during World War II. Tokyo imposed retaliatory export controls on three key chemicals—photoresists, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorinated polyimide—critical for making South Korea’s semiconductors and high-end displays used for televisions and smartphones. This was a shocking act of economic coercion to settle a historical grudge”.

It may be noted that relations between Japan and South Korea had seen an upswing during Yoon’s Presidency. And that was noteworthy because years under Yoon’s immediate predecessor, President Moon Jae-in (from Lee’s party) had nurtured anti-Japanese feelings.

Moon had scrapped the foundation that Tokyo and Seoul had set up with Japanese funding to provide restitution to the victims and their families. And the situation was further aggravated when, in 2018, South Korea’s Supreme Court ordered several Japanese companies to compensate unpaid South Korean World War II laborers.

Against this background, President Yoon had sincerely and actively tried to rise above these historical animosities and join hands together with Japan and the U.S. in the face of mounting North Korean aggressiveness and the Chinese hegemony, something all three consider to be their common threats.

Yoon had said that he believed in what he called “values-based diplomacy.”

Yoon often pointed out that “South Korea and Japan are now new partners who share universal values and pursue common interests.” He had emphasized the importance of Japan in South Korea’s security, particularly the seven rear bases provided to the United Nations Command by Japan, which could “serve as the greatest deterrent” to North Korea invading the South.

Under Yoon, South Korea has restored and expanded joint military drills (suspended under Moon to what was said “appease” China policy; he was believed to be the most pro-China President in South Korean history) and joined exercises with the US and Japan to track and intercept missiles from North Korea.

Yoon had proposed an initiative to resolve disputes stemming from compensation for wartime Korean forced laborers. He had announced that South Korea would use its own funds to compensate Koreans enslaved by Japanese companies before the end of World War II. This was reciprocated by Japan, which rolled back the sanctions on South Korea.

Yoon also traveled to Tokyo in March 2023 for talks with the then-Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. It was the first visit by a South Korean President to Japan in over 12 years. Kishida reciprocated with a visit to Seoul in May and expressed sympathy for the suffering of Korean forced laborers during Japan’s colonial rule.

Will Lee’s election as South Korea’s new President arrest the further momentum in the ties between Seoul and Tokyo, given his and his DPK’s traditional antipathy towards Japan?

It is a difficult question to answer. While Lee talks of “pragmatism,” during the electioneering, he said something that was considered by many analysts to be quite “ambiguous.”

On April 25, he clearly stated during a televised debate that South Korea must not be unconditionally tethered to the alliance or rigidly confined by the Korea–US–Japan trilateral bloc.

“Of course, the Korea–US alliance is indeed the foundation of the Republic of Korea’s foreign policy …but bloc alignments also carry weight. Trilateral cooperation among Korea, the US, and Japan is also important. But we cannot be unilaterally bound to those alone.”

In an interview released on the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation’s YouTube channel in mid-April, Lee argued that Seoul cannot afford to turn its back on either Beijing or Moscow in pursuit of its national interest, given their geographical proximity and deep economic entanglement.

“Even if we wanted to abandon ties with China and Russia, we couldn’t. We’re intertwined with them — what choice do we have?” Lee added, “Our economies are deeply intertwined with them, and geography makes separation impossible. It’s fate — our destiny.”

Lee emphasized the significance of navigating relations with China and Russia, especially at a time when a deteriorating global trade environment, hit by tariff wars, is weighing heavily on export-reliant South Korea.

During another television debate on May 18, Lee said, “We must prioritize the national interest and avoid becoming too deeply involved in the China-Taiwan conflict. The idea is to respect the status quo and maintain an appropriate distance.”

Pressed on whether he would support intervention in a potential China-Taiwan contingency, Lee declined to give a definitive answer, instead emphasizing a flexible, situational approach.

“If a specific situation arises, we must assess it flexibly, based on the national interest,” he said. “Diplomatic relations are fluid, and responses should vary accordingly.”

While reaffirming the importance of the South Korea–U.S. alliance, Lee said diplomacy with other major powers, such as China and Russia, should be handled in a prudent manner, saying it should be guided by “pragmatism” and the “national interest.”

In this interview, Lee acknowledged the importance of the South Korea-U.S. alliance and why it should remain “the foundation of our diplomacy and security, and be further strengthened,” but he added, and that is important to note, “however, we should not go all in and put all our eggs in one basket.”

If anything, these suggest that there could be a shift away from former President Yoon’s “values-based diplomacy” toward Lee’s foreign policy of pragmatism. However, it remains to be seen whether that pragmatism will be a turning point for the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific. 完整的一字不落的翻译成中文