28国集体施压，中国坚决不妥协，普京政府却率先对美让步，石油能源向美敞开大门

Group 1 - The core of the article discusses the geopolitical tensions among China, the US, the EU, and Russia, highlighting a recent shift where Russia has shown willingness to cooperate with the US in the energy sector despite ongoing pressures from the US and EU on China [1][9]. - The US has been pressuring the EU to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, potentially up to 100%, as a strategy to isolate China during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict [1][3]. - China's response to the US's tariff threats has been assertive, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasizing that such tariffs would harm all parties involved and warning of potential retaliatory measures, including restrictions on rare earth exports and tightening imports from the EU [3][4]. Group 2 - EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that the EU would make its own decisions regarding tariff policies, acknowledging the need to balance relations with the US and emerging economies like India [4][6]. - Despite US pressure, the EU has not fully aligned with the US's demands for tariffs on China and India, indicating a growing divergence in interests between the US and EU [6][10]. - The EU has been actively sanctioning Russia, with the latest round of sanctions also targeting Chinese entities involved in supporting Russia, reflecting a complex interplay of geopolitical interests [6][7]. Group 3 - Russia's recent overture to the US regarding energy cooperation, particularly with the Sakhalin-1 project, is seen as a strategic move to alleviate economic pressures from Western sanctions and to potentially create divisions within the Western alliance [9][10]. - The Sakhalin-1 project, which previously involved significant US investment, is now being reopened to foreign investors, including US companies, as a means for Russia to stabilize its economy amidst ongoing conflict [9][10]. - The article suggests that the US's dual approach of pressuring allies while seeking cooperation with Russia reflects a complex and often contradictory foreign policy stance [10].