特朗普展示的图片暗示将吞并加拿大、格陵兰岛和委内瑞拉 美国总统特朗普20日说，其控制格陵兰岛的目标"不可逆转"，且未排除动用武力夺取该岛的可能性。他同时声称，美国与北约将达成一项令双方"皆大欢 喜"的解决方案。相关表态引发多个欧洲国家及加拿大的反对，各方对特朗普政府坚持获取格陵兰岛并为"夺岛"加征关税的做法表达强烈不满。 执意夺岛 停在格陵兰岛的丹麦空军"超级大力神"运输机 美不排除动用武力可能 特朗普20日早些时候在社交媒体平台"真实社交"上发文称，格陵兰岛对美国的安全"至关重要"，并强调其控制格陵兰岛的目标"不可逆转"，且"所有人都同 意"。 同日，特朗普在白宫举行记者会，围绕就职一周年发表讲话。当被问及愿为获取格陵兰岛走多远时，特朗普仅回应称："你们会知道的。"当被问及若最高法 院裁定阻碍其以关税威胁获得格陵兰岛，该如何应对时，特朗普表示："那我得用别的方式……我们有其他选择。"而对于是否可能使用武力的问题，他未作 出明确表态。 关于美国控制格陵兰岛是否会导致北约瓦解的提问，特朗普回答称，美国和北约会找到一个让双方都"非常满意"的解决方案。他还说，北约的作用"有时被 高估"，北约的实力取决于美国，如果没 ...

2026.01. 21 本文字数：1430，阅读时长大约2分钟 作者 | 第一财经 程程 "旧的秩序不会回来了。"在瑞士达沃斯举行的世界经济论坛年会期间，加拿大总理卡尼20日在演讲中 这样说。 在演讲中，卡尼没有直接点名美国总统特朗普，而是提及了"美国霸权"，并表示一些大国正在将经济 一体化作为"武器"，关税当作杠杆。他呼吁中等强国通过联合行动争取真正的战略自主。 "大国目前尚有能力单打独斗。它们拥有市场规模、军事能力和施压杠杆，而我们没有。但当我们与 霸权国家进行双边谈判时，我们是以弱势地位谈判，接受被给予的一切，并彼此竞争。这不是主 权。"卡尼说。 卡尼呼吁各国政府建设强大的国内经济，并强调国际多元化不仅是经济上的审慎，更是外交政策的物 质基础，"中等大国必须共同行动，因为如果我们不在餐桌上，我们就会在菜单上。" 加拿大正在转变战略姿态 呼吁中等国家认清现实 "过去几十年，加拿大等国家在所谓的'以规则为基础的国际秩序'下发展。尽管这个所谓国际基于规则 秩序的故事在某种程度上是虚构的：最强大的国家会在方便时为自己开脱，贸易规则被不对称执行， 国际法的适用力度也取决于被告或受害者的身份。这种虚构曾经是有用的。 ...

要说2026年开年最忙的政客，特朗普称第二没人敢称第一。 这位美国总统，手就没从"搞事按钮"上挪开过，主打一个"全球范围内刷存在感"。 谁能想到，2026年开年的全球大戏，主角还是特朗普这位"霸权戏精"。 中方刚敲打完美国的单边霸凌，他转头就抡出关税大棒，放话对法国葡萄酒征200%关税。 这力度比中美贸易战峰值还猛，法国直接成了美欧博弈里第一个被架上祭坛的"祭品"。 那这究竟是怎么一回事呢？ 1月初就盯上了格陵兰岛，张口就说要"拿到所有权"，还狂言"不行就走艰难道路"，白宫官员更补刀"动用美军是选项"，把格陵兰岛和刚被干预的委内瑞拉 相提并论。 这边刚把欧洲盟友惹毛，那边又忙着组建所谓加沙"和平委员会"，拉着女婿库什纳等人站台，给60多个国家发邀请函，试图把中东事务攥在手里。 短短十几天，从领土觊觎到地缘操控，特朗普把"霸权主义"四个字演绎得淋漓尽致，仿佛不搞点风浪，就显不出他的存在感。 更讽刺的是，他还一边放狠话，一边让国务卿鲁比奥去和丹麦"谈购买格陵兰岛"，典型的"打一棒子给颗甜枣"式虚伪。 他当场放话要对法国葡萄酒和香槟征收200%关税，还嘴硬"他很快会加入，不加入也无所谓"。 这话翻译过来就是：顺我者 ...

Group 1 - Protests occurred in Greenland and Denmark against the U.S. President Trump's comments regarding the acquisition of Greenland, with demonstrators asserting their right to self-determination [1][2][4][5] - Trump announced a 10% tariff on goods exported to the U.S. from eight European countries, which will increase to 25% months later, until a deal for the "complete and total purchase of Greenland" is reached [8][6] - European leaders condemned the U.S. tariffs as "unacceptable," warning that such actions could lead to a "dangerous vicious cycle" and undermine international law and regional stability [1][10][12][16] Group 2 - The protests in Greenland's capital Nuuk and various cities in Denmark, including Copenhagen, were attended by political figures who expressed solidarity with the Greenlandic people and emphasized that Greenland is not for sale [4][5] - Experts criticized the U.S. actions as violations of international law, arguing that they threaten global governance and the stability of international relations, reflecting a decline in U.S. influence [19][20]

据光明网报道，当地时间1月14日，美国政坛接连抛出三颗重磅炸弹，迅速搅动了全球地缘局势，局面 愈发扑朔迷离。美国众议院以341票赞成、79票反对的悬殊差距，通过了一项捆绑财政部、国税局与国 家安全项目支出的法案，这不仅为濒临停摆的联邦政府续命，更意味着特朗普的对外军事行动可以得到 更大的空间。同一天，美国国务院宣布无限期暂停与75个国家的移民签证办理，俄罗斯、伊朗、巴西等 国悉数在列。与此同时，在面对欧洲多国纷纷派兵进入格陵兰岛的强硬态度时，特朗普这位之前扬言要 动武夺岛的总统，突然转变态度，表示会寻找合适的方式解决，这一变脸速度简直堪比川剧中的绝活。 美伊之间的紧张局势也在同步升级，美国连续三天发布撤侨警告，林肯号航母打击群正在全速前往中 东，预计一周内抵达波斯湾。而五角大楼更是在乌代德空军基地增派空中加油机和B-52战略轰炸机，欧 洲官员甚至透露美军可能在24小时内对伊朗发动军事行动，但这究竟是真正的军事部署，还是特朗普惯 常的心理战，目前尚无明确结论。伊朗方面已公开表示将做好准备，一场围绕中东霸权的博弈正进入倒 计时。 特朗普在格陵兰岛问题上的变脸，揭示了其霸权逻辑的脆弱。自2025年重返白宫以来，特朗 ...

抗议美国"夺岛"图谋 当地时间1月17日，在格陵兰岛首府努克举行的示威游行按计划开始。格陵兰岛警方表示，前往美国驻格陵兰岛领事馆方向的部分路段已被封锁，多地出现 交通中断，在示威者通过后，封锁将解除。 17日，丹麦本土和格陵兰岛多地分别举行游行示威，抗议美国近期持续发表觊觎格陵兰岛的言论。然而就在抗议活动开始后不久，美总统特朗普发文称，将 对8个反对其收购格陵兰岛的欧洲国家加征10%的关税，数月后还将增至25%。 相关国家随后纷纷发声，称美方行径"不可接受"，欧盟领导人也表示，美国加征关税或导致"危险的恶性循环"。 有欧洲学者直言，美国做法违反国际法，破坏地区稳定。加征关税损害他国利益，削弱自身影响力。 格陵兰岛及丹麦多地游行示威 格陵兰岛自治政府总理延斯-弗雷德里克·尼尔森也参加了在努克举行的示威游行。他在讲话中表示"我们的未来由我们自己决定"。包括前总理金·基尔森和穆 特·布鲁普·埃格德在内的多位政界人士出席了示威游行。 同日，在丹麦首都哥本哈根，近千名民众举行抗议活动。丹麦税务大臣阿妮·哈尔斯博-约恩森在哥本哈根市政厅广场发表讲话，明确表示支持格陵兰岛人 民。她表示，"今天我们站在这里，就是要一劳永逸地 ...

Core Viewpoint - Taiwan is sacrificing its industrial foundation and livelihood to sustain U.S. hegemony and the "Taiwan independence" dream, as evidenced by the recent trade agreement with the U.S. that demands significant investments and concessions from Taiwan's semiconductor industry [1] Group 1: Trade Agreement Implications - Taiwan has agreed to invest $250 billion in the U.S., which exceeds 50% of its GDP, while Japan and South Korea's commitments are only about 10% of their GDP [1] - TSMC and Taiwan's semiconductor supply chain are required to shift 40% of their production capacity to the U.S. before the current U.S. administration ends [1] Group 2: Economic Consequences - The agreement is viewed as an economic exploitation, leading to concerns that Taiwan is losing its core position in the semiconductor industry and moving towards an "emptying out" model [1] - The Taiwanese government is accused of prioritizing personal interests and dependency on U.S. power over the welfare of its citizens, risking the future of its semiconductor industry [1] Group 3: Public Sentiment and Criticism - There is widespread criticism within Taiwan regarding the government's approach, with claims that the leadership is misleading the public about the benefits of the agreement [1] - Experts warn that the loss of core technology and talent from Taiwan could lead to a significant reduction in tax revenue and job opportunities for young engineers, ultimately burdening the society with higher taxes and reduced social welfare [1]

Core Viewpoint - The history of U.S. military interventions abroad spans over two centuries, often justified under various pretexts, but fundamentally aimed at consolidating U.S. global hegemony, particularly evident during the Cold War [1][6]. Group 1: Historical Context - The U.S. has engaged in hundreds of military actions since its founding, with motives ranging from protecting citizens to maintaining regional stability, but often with deeper intentions of interfering in domestic politics of other nations [1]. - The School of the Americas (SOA) has been a significant tool for indirect intervention, training over 60,000 military personnel primarily from Latin America, focusing on counter-insurgency tactics and ideological education [6][12]. Group 2: Impact of the School of the Americas - The SOA has been associated with numerous human rights violations, with many graduates involved in acts of torture, murder, and political repression in their home countries [8][14]. - The training provided at the SOA has been criticized for fostering a culture of impunity among Latin American military forces, reinforcing their belief in superiority over their fellow citizens [14][15]. Group 3: Evolution and Rebranding - In response to public pressure and changing geopolitical contexts, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001, attempting to improve its image while continuing its controversial training programs [11][18]. - Despite changes in name and curriculum, the SOA has maintained its role as a "protector of empire," continuing to instill military skills alongside ideological indoctrination [12][19]. Group 4: Cultural and Ideological Influence - The SOA has played a crucial role in shaping the worldview of Latin American military officers, promoting a binary understanding of good and evil through the lens of American consumerism and the "American Dream" [13][14]. - The institution has been instrumental in creating a transnational alliance of anti-communist forces in Latin America, effectively integrating military personnel from various countries into a U.S.-led framework [16][19].

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, focusing on alleged misconduct in the renovation of the Fed's headquarters, which is seen as a political maneuver by Trump against dissenters [1] - Powell's initial appointment by Trump in 2018 was harmonious, but tensions escalated after the Fed began raising interest rates, leading to a clash over monetary policy as Trump pushed for aggressive rate cuts to stimulate the economy [3] - The current inflation data in the U.S. appears to be declining, yet the cost of living remains high, with 65% of Americans feeling their living standards are decreasing, indicating that Trump's policies are failing to address these economic challenges [5] Group 2 - Trump's aggressive policies are pushing the U.S. towards a more dangerous direction, combining pressure on the Fed for rate cuts with increased government spending and trade protectionism, resulting in a distorted economic structure [3] - In foreign and military affairs, Trump's actions, such as the attempted capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, have drawn international condemnation and destabilized regional geopolitics, reflecting a disregard for potential backlash [5] - Trump's extreme approach is creating a vicious cycle where his radical base becomes more energized, leading him to adopt even more extreme policies, which may yield short-term gains but threaten long-term stability and U.S. global dominance [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the historical context and implications of the U.S. military intervention in Cuba during the "Bay of Pigs" incident, highlighting the failure of the operation and its impact on U.S.-Cuba relations and the broader geopolitical landscape in Latin America [1][9]. Group 1: Historical Background - In 1959, Fidel Castro's revolutionary forces overthrew the U.S.-backed Batista regime in Cuba, leading to a series of reforms that challenged U.S. economic and political interests [2][4]. - The Cuban government implemented land reforms and nationalization policies that directly affected U.S. investments, particularly in the sugar industry, prompting the U.S. to impose trade sanctions and cut off aid [4][5]. Group 2: The Bay of Pigs Invasion - The U.S. planned the invasion of Cuba, training Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro's government, which was executed under President Kennedy's authorization in 1961 [6][8]. - The invasion, known as the "Bay of Pigs" incident, began on April 17, 1961, but quickly failed due to strong resistance from Cuban forces, resulting in the capture of nearly 1,200 invaders [8][9]. Group 3: Aftermath and Consequences - The failure of the invasion solidified Castro's position in Cuba and led to the declaration of Cuba as a socialist state, further straining U.S.-Cuba relations [9][10]. - The incident prompted widespread condemnation of the U.S. internationally, with significant protests in Latin America against U.S. intervention, highlighting the geopolitical ramifications of the failed operation [10].