脫勾 vs. 去風險

【雙魚之論】英文拷到 G / D 找中文翻譯
Decoupling could be a long-term strategic goal, as well as a sentiment of re-bouncing due to being subject to extortion by the rivals.
However, not wanting to be extorted does not necessarily be decoupling only.
Choosing important, not all, elements to decouple is equivalent to de-risking, which is a reasonable and feasible approach (means).
Therefore, de-risking and decoupling share the same direction.
However, the extent and severity of action differ.  De-risking can be seen as a medium-term action to be free from extortion.
If one believes that de-risking is not the right approach, then it is necessary to answer the following questions:
• Is being subject to extortion by systematic rivals acceptable?
• What should be done when facing extortion?
In the United States, the concept is referred to as "supply chain," encompassing the descriptions and practices such as resilience, cleanliness, strength, and reorganization.

「脫勾」（decoupling）可以是一個長期的戰略目標，也可以是因為受到競爭對手的勒索而引起的反彈情緒。
然而，不想被勒索不一定只有「脫勾」一途。
選擇重要的元素來「脫勾」等同於「去風險」（de-risking），這是一個合理可行的方法。
因此，降低風險和脫勾有著相同的方向。
然而，行動的程度和嚴重程度有所不同。「去風險」可以被視為一個中期的行動，以避免受到勒索。
如果有人認為「去風險」不是正確的方法，那就需要回答以下問題：
• 受到系統性競爭對手的勒索是否可以接受？
• 面對勒索時應該怎麼做？
在美國，這個概念被稱為「供應鏈」，包括了韌性、乾淨、強度和重組等描述和實踐。