“港口费”博弈昨天正式开始，但没想到，比赛第一天，美国自己就先“瘫痪”了！

Core Insights - The trade battle between the two parties has revealed a significant disparity in execution capabilities, with one side implementing precise countermeasures while the other is hindered by administrative paralysis due to a government shutdown [1][5]. Group 1: Countermeasures and Strategies - The Eastern side's countermeasures are described as "surgical" in nature, exempting local shipbuilding and empty ship repairs from port fees, thereby creating order benefits for domestic shipyards [3]. - A four-year fee increase mechanism from 2025 to 2028 has been established, allowing for a gradual release of pressure over future cycles [3]. - The countermeasures include a dynamic adjustment clause, maintaining pressure while allowing for negotiation space [3]. Group 2: U.S. Response and Challenges - The U.S. initially planned a reciprocal response but faced a government shutdown that led to a "strike" in the customs system, forcing the Customs and Border Protection Agency to shift millions of dollars in fee responsibilities to shipowners [5]. - The absurd directive requiring shipowners to "self-declare" fees has drawn global ridicule, contrasting sharply with the U.S.'s proclaimed tough stance [5]. Group 3: Strategic Goals and Long-term Outlook - The strategic goals differ fundamentally: the Eastern side's measures are interconnected and target pain points while maintaining policy flexibility, whereas the Western side is caught in a political showmanship trap with hasty decisions leading to execution failures [7]. - The initial confrontation indicates that relying solely on administrative pressure without systematic preparation will likely result in international mockery [7]. - The ongoing geopolitical struggle is expected to be a prolonged process of tug-of-war, with negotiations seeking new balance points, potentially leading to a new norm in international rules after multiple adjustments [7].