其一：别被美国给骗了 美国最具欺骗性的表象是啥？就是所谓的"两党竞争"，以至于搞得许多人都认为有两个美国一般。 就说拜登和特朗普时期吧，拜登政府明显是俄乌冲突是最优方案，不二之选！意思就是说，先解决了俄罗斯，后集合西方和盟友一 切资源，再来对付中国——须知，中国离北约的距离，仅隔着一个俄罗斯的！ 比如，特朗普在第一任内，就推翻了奥巴马时期的所有政绩，不断退群退群，一时间搞得马克龙都怒了，吼：北约脑死亡！而拜登 上台后第一件事就是骄傲的宣布：美国回来啦！于是又开始不断加群、加群等…… 但实则这却仅是作秀给全世界看。敢问，特朗普真推翻了奥巴马时期的所有吗？别闹了，都是表面文章！奥巴马时期是不是提出过 亚太再平衡？即，美国回师亚太，来封堵中国！ 在特朗普上台后，不仅继承了这个策略，还搞出了"印太战略"，以及跟中国的贸易战等！在拜登上台后，明显也继承了特朗普时期 的这两大策略。 中美贸易战非但没有停，反而还不断加码。至于印太战略也是一并兼收，并且为了加强"印太战略"，又搞出来了"美、英、澳、 日"的奥库斯联盟，和对冲中国一带一路的"美-欧-以-印"经济走廊…… 因此笔者开篇才说：别被美国给骗了，美国两党竞争的本质，就 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the political dynamics in California, particularly focusing on Governor Newsom's response to immigration policies and the tensions arising from them, as well as the implications for future elections and political maneuvering [1][17]. Group 1: Political Context - California is a hub for tech elites who are largely immigrants, and the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration have created significant resentment among these groups [2][3]. - The article draws parallels between the current immigration tensions and the Black Lives Matter movement, suggesting that both are fueled by emotional responses rather than rational discourse [3][4]. Group 2: Governor Newsom's Strategy - Governor Newsom is leveraging the current political climate to position himself against Trump, aiming to attract swing voters by emphasizing the importance of immigration and state rights [7][17]. - Newsom's approach includes framing the immigration debate in a way that separates American interests from Trump's policies, thereby appealing to a broader audience [15][18]. Group 3: Implications for Future Elections - The article suggests that Newsom's actions are not just about immediate political gains but are also aimed at positioning himself for the 2028 presidential election [14][17]. - By focusing on the perceived threats to American law and political traditions posed by Trump, Newsom seeks to galvanize support among moderate voters [18][22]. Group 4: Broader Political Landscape - The article highlights the ongoing tensions within the U.S. political landscape, noting that while there are significant conflicts, the elite class tends to find compromises to maintain the status quo [21][26]. - It argues that the real conflict in America is not between different social classes but rather among the elite, who share common interests in preserving American hegemony [25][26].

Group 1 - The article discusses the internal chaos in the U.S., particularly in Los Angeles and New York, as a result of the current administration's actions, which are turning communities into "war zones" and prompting military intervention [1][22][26] - The U.S. is facing a decline in its global dominance due to the current administration's policies, which are undermining the strength of the dollar and the military, leading to a loss of credibility and trust among allies [3][10][11] - The imposition of tariffs by the current administration has not only harmed international trade but has also negatively impacted the U.S. economy, with allies distancing themselves and the credibility of the U.S. being severely affected [5][9][10] Group 2 - The article highlights the ongoing conflict between state and federal authorities, exemplified by the protests in Los Angeles against immigration enforcement, which reflect deeper societal fractures in the U.S. [22][26][29] - The current administration's attacks on prestigious institutions like Harvard are seen as detrimental to the U.S.'s global competitiveness, as these institutions are crucial for innovation and talent acquisition [15][20] - The article suggests that the current administration's actions are leading to increased political division, particularly between the Democratic and Republican parties, exacerbating tensions within the country [28][29][31]

Group 1 - The U.S. Trade Representative's office quietly extended tariff exemptions on Chinese goods, contrasting with President Trump's recent aggressive rhetoric towards China [1][3] - Trump's rapid policy shifts have left observers confused, as he oscillates between threats and concessions within a short timeframe [3][5] - The U.S. is facing significant internal crises, including rising inflation, which has led to public discontent and criticism of the administration's handling of economic issues [7][11] Group 2 - The U.S. government's layoffs have sparked protests, revealing the disconnect between political promises and the harsh realities faced by supporters of the administration [9][11] - Legal challenges to Trump's tariff policies have emerged, with courts questioning the constitutionality of his actions, indicating a potential shift in international trade dynamics [9][11] - The U.S. is experiencing a decline in diplomatic credibility and increasing social division, highlighting the vulnerabilities of its hegemonic position [11][12] Group 3 - China's dominance in rare earth elements has become a critical leverage point against U.S. trade policies, exposing weaknesses in U.S. industrial capabilities [12][14] - Technological advancements in China, such as Huawei's chip production and the development of domestic aircraft, are undermining U.S. efforts to impose technological sanctions [14][17] - China's expanding diplomatic relationships and trade agreements contrast sharply with the U.S.'s isolationist approach, suggesting a shift towards a multipolar world [19][21] Group 4 - The recent policy reversals by the Trump administration reflect a recognition of the unsustainability of high tariffs and trade restrictions, signaling a potential shift towards negotiation [22][24] - The evolving international landscape indicates that unilateral actions by the U.S. are increasingly met with resistance, as countries seek to strengthen multilateral ties [21][24] - The current situation illustrates a broader historical trend towards multipolarity, where cooperation becomes essential for navigating global challenges [24][26]

Core Points - The 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue was held in Singapore from May 30 to June 1, with a notable change in China's representation, sending a delegation from the National Defense University instead of a higher-level official [1][7] - U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's speech emphasized the "China threat," particularly regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea, which was met with strong rebuttals from the Chinese delegation [1][5] - The dialogue highlighted the contrasting perspectives on regional security, with U.S. officials advocating for increased defense spending among regional allies, while many attendees expressed skepticism about U.S. intentions and commitments [4][10] Group 1: U.S. Position - U.S. Defense Secretary Austin's remarks were characterized by a hegemonic mindset, aiming to provoke confrontation and promote U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region [3][4] - The U.S. is perceived to be pressuring regional allies to increase defense spending, effectively pushing them to purchase American military equipment [4][10] - Many attendees at the dialogue expressed disappointment with Austin's speech, viewing it as lacking substance and primarily focused on maintaining U.S. dominance without offering concrete security guarantees [10] Group 2: China's Response - The Chinese delegation, led by Major General Hu Gangfeng, firmly rejected the accusations made by the U.S., labeling them as unfounded and aimed at inciting conflict in the Asia-Pacific [1][5] - China's participation at a lower level this year was framed as a strategic choice, emphasizing constructive dialogue and mutual respect rather than a sign of diminished importance [7][8] - The Chinese response highlighted a commitment to peace and stability in the region, contrasting sharply with the confrontational tone of the U.S. [5][10]

Group 1: Economic Implications - The U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2025 is projected to be $895.2 billion, accounting for 40% of global military spending, which underpins the U.S. military presence in over 800 bases worldwide [2] - The stability of U.S. Treasury bonds is closely tied to the military's ability to maintain global order, with $9.2 trillion in U.S. debt maturing in 2025, raising concerns about potential market reactions to military failures [3] - A significant sell-off of U.S. debt due to military failures could lead to soaring interest rates, directly impacting U.S. fiscal sustainability [3] Group 2: Technological Competitiveness - The U.S. military's leading position in military technology is crucial for maintaining competitiveness, with historical examples like ARPANET showcasing military-driven technological advancements [4] - Recent setbacks in key areas such as hypersonic weapons have exposed vulnerabilities in U.S. military technology, potentially undermining global trust in U.S. technological superiority [4] - Non-traditional warfare tactics employed by smaller nations could challenge U.S. military dominance, as demonstrated by attacks on U.S. naval assets [5] Group 3: Geopolitical Consequences - Military failures could lead to a rapid decline in U.S. influence, with allies potentially seeking partnerships with countries like China and Russia, undermining U.S. strategic initiatives [6] - The potential for a liquidity crisis in the U.S. debt market could arise if Asian countries accelerate the sale of U.S. bonds in response to military setbacks, threatening the global financial system [6] - The collapse of U.S. military hegemony could trigger a shift towards a multipolar world, challenging the existing global order [7]

自特朗普上台以来，他就迫不及待地采取了关税手段，针对我国发起经济攻势。自2月份起，美国接连三个月加大对我国的 关税力度，尤其是到了4月，关税的压力变得更加沉重。显然，特朗普急于阻止我国日益增长的经济势头，深怕美方被甩得 越来越远。于是，他采取了极端手段，歇斯底里地将矛头指向我国，妄图制止我国的发展。然而面对美国的咄咄逼人，我国 始终表现得沉着冷静。 每当美方加大税率的同时，我国都能以同样的方式做出回应，而其他国家往往无法做到这一点。美国在加税后很快就感受到 压力，最终不得不开始妥协。最近的一次中美对话再次证明，美方在这场博弈中输了，甚至美国官员万斯公开表示，美国霸 权时代已经宣告终结。 回顾过去，曾经中美关系在某些时期还是友好相处的，那时候我国的发展速度较慢，美方还曾主动伸出援手，助力我国走向 更好的未来。无疑，那段日子是双方关系中最为和谐的一段，但这一美好时光如今已不复存在。 特朗普在首次担任总统时，将矛头直指我国，专注于经济领域的对抗。这一行为迫使我国不得不做出反击，并正式拉开了中 美对抗的序幕。从2018年至今，美国始终在各个领域与我国针锋相对，中美之间的对抗越来越加剧，显然这种局面是美国自 己的所作所 ...

在当今复杂多变的国际经济局势中，特朗普掀起的关税大战宛如一场猛烈的风暴，席卷全球，众多国家深受其害。而在这场风暴中，日本与中国的不同遭 遇，犹如一面镜子，映照出美国霸权的蛮横无理，也凸显了各国在应对挑战时的不同抉择与命运走向。 最开始，特朗普扬起关税大棒的时候，日本第一时间就选择了"下跪"。当时，日本首相石破茂出访美国，送上了很多"大礼"，就是为了让日本获得关税豁 免。这些好处有点多，日本承诺大幅提高 2025 财年的防务预算，并力图在 2027 年达到美国人的要求，将国防预算提高到国内生产总值（GDP）的 2%，这 里面，自然隐藏了包括上交美国的保护费。另外，石破茂还表示会计划将对美国的投资规模提升至 1 万亿美元，大幅购买美国液化天然气，此外，石破茂还 暗示特朗普，日本可能会购买美国的生物乙醇等能源，还这般讨好的姿态，一度让特朗普兴奋不已，高呼"我爱日本"，甚至扬言要与日本构建 "日美关系的 新黄金时代"。 然而，日本的卑躬屈膝并未换来美国的怜悯。美国的关税战全面爆发后，日本不仅没有获得豁免，反而遭到了美国一次次沉痛的上海。美国对日本加征了 24% 的高额 "对等关税"， 接着对钢铁和铝制品加征 25% ...

特朗普做不到一天之内结束俄乌冲突，但可以只用100天的时间，彻底埋葬美国80年来一手构建起的世界霸权。 4月的最后一天，特朗普迎来自己执政第100天的日子。在美国的政治传统中，100天是一个非常重要的时间节点，这100天特朗普干了什么，基本决定了他未 来4年的执政，以及外界对其的评价。 n 利用 STANTAL CONSULT es and and the and and and the states aller of the state of the state STERNET CONSULERS the state of the t the station Call Art 1 alon Kan Relation the first nders of the are o de and and 【我要在我国家庭的事情】 特朗普的百日新政，直接动摇了美元霸权的根基。美元指数暴跌、美股暴跌、美债不断被抛售。世界去美元化正在加速，尤其是以中国为首的金砖国家，人 民币跨境支付的占比逐渐提高，越来越多的国家加入到了抛弃美元的行列中。 那么外部环境不断恶化，美国内部是不是好起来了？毕竟特朗普的目的，是要让"美国再次伟大 ...

软实力概念的提出者、哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院前院长约瑟夫·奈认为，一个国家的软实力取决于 其文化、价值观的吸引力，以及其政策在外界人士眼中的合法性。这名美国学者日前在英国《金 融时报》发表评论文章说，美国总统特朗普再次上台后，扬言"购买"格陵兰岛、觊觎巴拿马运 河、霸凌盟友和第三世界国家，这些依靠"胁迫和交易"的政策既不正当也不合理，严重损害美国 软实力。 近期在英国伦敦发布的《2025年全球软实力指数》显示，美国的"声誉"和"治理水平"两项指标正 在下滑。在奈看来，随着特朗普继续执政，美国的软实力在今后几年会经受更大挑战。 特朗普政府对美国软实力的衰退并不以为意。一个例证是，特朗普政府就任后立即关闭了美国国 际开发署，这家机构一直以来被认为是美国包装和输出自身软实力的重要平台。有分析人士指 出，在特朗普政府看来，继续包装维持美国的软实力纯属浪费资源，"赤裸裸"的胁迫施压能更为 直接地获取利益。澳大利亚"对话"网站刊文说，特朗普政府似乎完全放弃软实力，也不在乎这将 给美国带来的损害。 "美国的影响力和软实力正经历一场'大出血'" "美国软实力正在蒸发" "美国软实力正在蒸发""美国在加速挥霍其软实力""政策反复 ...