大统领会出兵格陵兰么？兼谈特朗普新秩序里的赢家和输家

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses Trump's perspective on international relations, emphasizing his desire to redefine the cost of security and alliances, particularly with European allies, rather than merely seeking territorial expansion in Greenland [4][6]. Group 1: Trump's Worldview - Trump perceives the post-war international order as fundamentally unfair to the U.S., characterized by significant trade deficits and the outsourcing of American jobs [2][3]. - He believes that the U.S. provides security to NATO allies at a low cost, which he argues should be compensated [3]. - Trump's negotiation style is likened to that of a mafia boss, where power dynamics dictate the terms of engagement rather than moral or procedural considerations [3]. Group 2: The Symbolism of Greenland - Greenland is viewed as a symbolic representation of the broader issue of U.S. security costs, rather than a genuine territorial ambition [4][6]. - Trump's approach aims to make European allies aware of the long-underestimated costs of their security arrangements with the U.S. [6]. Group 3: New World Order - The new order Trump envisions is hierarchical and transactional, where security is treated as a service and alliances are based on mutual benefits rather than shared values [5][6]. - This shift indicates a move away from multilateralism towards bilateral negotiations, impacting how countries interact with one another [11]. Group 4: Winners and Losers - The U.S. emerges as a marginal winner in this new order, gaining from increased military spending by allies but facing internal divisions and governance challenges [8][9]. - China is positioned as a structural beneficiary, as the fragmentation of the Western alliance provides it with strategic opportunities [9][10]. - Germany and the EU are identified as the biggest losers, as their reliance on rules and lack of military strength become significant disadvantages in the new order [14][15]. Group 5: Implications for Other Nations - India benefits from the new order by adopting a flexible approach, allowing it to navigate relationships with both the U.S. and Russia without being pressured into a single alignment [12]. - The UK may retain influence by aligning closely with the U.S. and taking on more responsibilities within the alliance [13]. - Singapore's position remains uncertain, as its adaptability will depend on its leadership's ability to navigate the new geopolitical landscape [18].