战略定力：坚守长期逻辑的决策韧性。市场情绪扰动：欧佩克联盟增产、非农数据疲软、印度采购暂停等事件引发短期恐慌，但高盛维持原预测不变。定力 支撑点：结构性要素优先，美国经济潜在增长率放缓、经合组织（OECD）库存累积速度加快等慢变量，权重高于地缘政治快变量；核心假设稳固：俄罗斯 供应韧性（折扣策略+中印需求）、美国衰退风险可控，构成预测基石。软实力体现：在信息过载的市场中，高盛通过拒绝短期噪音干扰，彰显其基于深度 研究的战略自信，强化市场对其预测的信任黏性。 资源整合力：多维风险对冲的决策智慧。核心逻辑：软实力的基础在于对分散资源的系统化整合能力。高盛维持油价预测不变的核心，在于其将供应中断风 险（俄罗斯、伊朗制裁）与需求下行风险（美国关税、经济疲软）进行动态对冲评估。供应端：俄罗斯折扣收窄、印度暂停采购等地缘事件可能削减全球原 油供给（上行风险）。需求端：美国经济衰退预期、制造业萎缩、就业市场降温可能抑制石油消费（下行风险）。软实力体现：高盛未因单方面信息（如欧 佩克联盟增产或地缘冲突）调整预测，而是通过整合多维矛盾变量，形成风险平衡的判断，体现了金融机构的系统性资源评估能力。 环境适应力：动态响应市场不确定 ...

特朗普威胁对俄实施二级制裁加剧原油市场动荡，短期推高油价但长期难改供需再平衡趋势。中俄印能源联盟削弱美国制裁效力，欧佩克增产与需求见顶将 压制油价上行空间。邓正红软实力表示，美国总统特朗普重申若俄罗斯未能与乌克兰达成停火协议，美国可能会对其施加经济惩罚，加剧市场对供应趋紧的 担忧，石油软实力向上运行，周二（7月29日）国际油价走高。截至收盘，纽约商品期货交易所西得克萨斯轻质原油9月期货结算价每桶涨2.50美元至69.21美 元，涨幅3.75%；伦敦洲际交易所布伦特原油9月期货结算价每桶涨2.47美元至72.51美元，涨幅3.53%。 地缘软实力博弈重构能源格局，多极联盟的抗制裁韧性。中俄印已构建去美元化能源结算体系（本币结算达90%），形成资源自主权软实力联盟。三国明确 表态继续购买俄油，削弱了美国二级制裁的实际威慑力，使政策软实力压制面临结构性失效。欧佩克联盟的调节作用，欧佩克计划8月日增产54.8万桶，其 供应调节能力构成关键市场平衡软实力。该联盟与美俄形成"政策压制-资源自主"的三方博弈，其增产决策将直接影响制裁引发的供应缺口能否被填补。 供需软实力的动态平衡，需求端季节性见顶。当前全球汽油消费旺季接近 ...

Group 1 - The core issue in the current oil market is the interplay between policy soft power suppression and geopolitical risk premium, with the market in a rebalancing phase between policy suppression (US and EU) and resource autonomy (OPEC and Russia) [2] - Trump's erratic tariff policies are causing concerns about economic recession, leading to a withdrawal of long positions in oil and an increase in short positions, reflecting investor pessimism about demand [2][3] - OPEC's production increase expectations and the performance of major Asian oil importers, China and India, are critical variables influencing oil prices [1][2] Group 2 - OPEC predicts that by 2025, daily oil demand from non-OECD Asian countries will increase by 610,000 barrels, with China contributing 210,000 barrels and India 160,000 barrels [1] - The International Energy Agency (IEA) has a more conservative forecast, estimating an increase of 81,000 barrels per day for China and 92,000 barrels for India, with a total increase of 352,000 barrels per day for non-OECD Asian countries [1] - Geopolitical risks, such as the ongoing Middle East conflicts and supply disruptions in Iraq, are providing structural support for the geopolitical risk premium in oil prices [3]

Core Points - The United States has announced its third withdrawal from UNESCO, reflecting its "America First" stance and prioritizing national interests over international laws and rules [1][2][3] - This decision is seen as part of a broader trend of unilateralism by the U.S., which is perceived to weaken its soft power and international influence [1][3] - The withdrawal will take effect on December 31, 2026, and is attributed to the U.S. government's belief that UNESCO promotes divisive social and cultural initiatives [2][4] Group 1: U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO - The U.S. has previously withdrawn from UNESCO twice, first in 1984 due to allegations of corruption and mismanagement, and again in 2017 [4] - The current withdrawal is based on ideological differences and a lack of willingness to lead globally, rather than solely financial considerations [3][4] - UNESCO's budget has been growing, with voluntary contributions doubling since 2018, despite the U.S. reducing its financial support [4][5] Group 2: International Reactions and Implications - UNESCO's Director-General expressed regret over the U.S. decision, emphasizing that it contradicts the principles of multilateralism [2][3] - The Chinese government has criticized the U.S. for its lack of responsibility as a major power and has reiterated its commitment to multilateralism and support for UNESCO [2][5] - The withdrawal raises questions about the reliability of the U.S. in international organizations and may create opportunities for China to enhance its influence within UNESCO [3][4]

Core Viewpoint - International oil prices have slightly declined due to the interplay of supply-demand dynamics and policy interventions, with concerns about demand persisting amid U.S. tariff policies and the EU's sanctions on Russian energy exports [1][2][3] Supply and Demand Dynamics - The demand side shows weakened momentum, with market concerns about oil demand continuing to grow, influenced by U.S. tariff policies that may suppress global economic activity and oil consumption [2][3] - On the supply side, resilience is observed as Russia has developed "immunity" to Western sanctions, allowing oil to continue flowing through various channels, which has not triggered excessive market panic [1][2][3] Policy Interventions - The EU's latest sanctions, including targeting India's Nayara Energy, have not effectively diminished Russian energy exports, as the sanctions face execution challenges and lack support from key emerging economies [2][3] - The U.S. tariff policies are seen as undermining the collaborative value of transatlantic alliances, potentially leading to a "de-Americanization" process among allies [3] Market Reactions - The market's response to sanctions and tariffs has been muted, reflecting skepticism about their effectiveness and execution, with oil prices remaining in the range of $64 to $70 per barrel [1][2][4] - The current oil price dynamics are influenced more by the costs associated with regulatory frameworks and geopolitical tensions rather than traditional supply-demand factors [4] Strategic Implications - The disconnect between sanction policies and market perceptions indicates a weakening of the EU's normative authority, as it struggles to address energy replacement costs and lacks technical solutions for severing trade ties with Russia [3] - If the U.S. and EU fail to repair the value recognition gap, the marginal impact of their policy tools on oil prices is likely to continue diminishing [4]

Core Viewpoint - International oil prices are experiencing a slight decline due to weak demand, policy impacts, and supply expansion, with a notable decrease in gasoline demand during the summer driving peak season [1][2][3] Group 1: Demand Weakness - The summer driving peak season has seen an unexpected decline in gasoline demand, with daily supply dropping by 670,000 barrels to 8.5 million barrels [2][3] - The increase in distillate oil inventory and rising stocks at the key storage hub in Cushing, Oklahoma, indicate a fundamental weakness in end-user consumption [1][3] - The trade tensions stemming from President Trump's tariff policies have significantly weakened global energy consumption expectations, leading to a chain reaction of deteriorating demand [3][4] Group 2: Policy Impact - The ongoing tariff war has triggered a complex crisis, impacting both demand prospects and increasing market uncertainty through supply chain disruptions [4] - Trump's denial of plans to dismiss Federal Reserve Chairman Powell provided a temporary boost to market sentiment, but the Fed's interest rate decisions continue to exert long-term pressure on oil prices [4] - The geopolitical context, including the easing of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, has further diminished risk premiums, stripping away price support [4] Group 3: Supply Expansion - Morgan Stanley warns of a potential return to supply surplus after the summer demand peak, indicating that OPEC's production strategies and U.S. capacity expansions are contributing to this trend [2][4] - The expected increase in OECD inventories could reach levels not seen since 2017, which corresponds to Brent crude prices around $65 per barrel, reflecting a dilution of oil's scarcity value [2][4] - The long-term forecast suggests Brent crude prices may stabilize at $60 per barrel by 2026, indicating a trend of devaluation in oil's soft power [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the impact of Trump's trade war and the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire plan on oil prices, highlighting a downward trend in oil prices due to weakened demand, reduced geopolitical risks, and increased production expectations [1][2][3]. Group 1: Demand Side Analysis - Trump's trade war is expected to suppress global demand for oil, with OPEC lowering its 2025 global daily oil demand growth forecast from 1.45 million barrels to 1.3 million barrels [2]. - The International Energy Agency (IEA) has also reduced its daily demand forecast by 300,000 barrels, indicating a significant erosion of market confidence due to tariff policies [2]. - The imposition of tariffs between the US and China has led to a "quasi-embargo" state in bilateral trade, further weakening oil consumption efficiency [2]. Group 2: Supply Side Analysis - Trump's avoidance of direct sanctions on Russian oil exports reflects a strategic dilemma, as he aims to showcase geopolitical control while avoiding domestic inflation spikes [3]. - The lack of direct sanctions has led to a reduction in geopolitical risk premiums, with traders previously expecting stronger actions against Russian oil exports [3]. - The OPEC alliance is caught in a cycle of increasing production to maintain market share, which exacerbates the downward pressure on oil prices [3]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - The interplay of US unilateral tariff policies and potential EU countermeasures reveals a failure of global cooperation mechanisms, leading to systemic market shocks [3]. - The current market is characterized by a critical phase of "non-material factors versus real fundamentals," with the trade war, reduced geopolitical risks, and production increases creating a trifecta of negative influences on oil prices [3]. - Citigroup predicts that Brent crude oil prices may drop to $60-$65 per barrel in the second half of 2025, reflecting the pressure from the collapse of soft power on pricing [3].

Core Insights - The current oil market predicament is a result of various soft power dynamics, with the IEA's credibility being challenged and OPEC questioning its data reliability [1][5] - The IEA has raised its supply growth forecast while OPEC has decided to increase oil production and lower demand expectations, indicating a conflict between data predictions and market realities [1][4] Group 1: IEA and OPEC Dynamics - OPEC has ceased using IEA data and publicly criticized its accuracy, indicating a struggle for narrative control and questioning IEA's neutrality [2][5] - Traders are confused by contradictory signals from the IEA's surplus predictions and strong market performance, leading to a lack of clear decision-making [2][4] - The IEA's credibility is at risk as its core soft power, based on data authority, is being openly challenged by OPEC and market realities [5][6] Group 2: Market Reactions and Supply Dynamics - The IEA's surplus predictions have not dominated the market, which is influenced by short-term demand, geopolitical risks, and macroeconomic sentiments [4][5] - Non-OPEC supply growth, particularly from the U.S., is reshaping the global energy supply structure, diminishing the influence of traditional oil-producing alliances [5][6] - The EU's proposed dynamic price cap on Russian oil aims to exert influence but faces challenges regarding its effectiveness and potential backlash from Russia [3][5] Group 3: Data Interpretation and Transparency Issues - Saudi Arabia's data interpretation raises complexities, as it claims compliance with production quotas while acknowledging temporary overproduction [3][5] - The lack of transparency in Russian data complicates global energy market analysis, highlighting significant information gaps [2][5] - Different interpretations of data from various sources, such as Kpler and IEA, contribute to a complex information environment that tests the credibility of all parties involved [3][4]

Core Viewpoint - Trump's imposition of tariffs on the EU and Mexico is perceived as a short-term show of strength but ultimately undermines U.S. soft power and accelerates the "de-Americanization" of allies, potentially harming U.S. interests in the long run [1][6]. Group 1: Economic Impact - The 30% tariffs are punitive and exceed typical trade barriers, damaging the stability of supply chains and business expectations for EU and U.S. companies [2]. - The U.S. image as a "reliable trading partner" is significantly diminished, leading to a decline in operational efficiency within its economic environment [2]. - Economic models suggest that the tariffs may have a more negative impact on the U.S. economy, including inflation and slowed growth, than on the EU [4]. Group 2: Ideological Conflict - The EU's commitment to a "rules-based international trading system" contrasts sharply with Trump's unilateral approach, damaging the ideological foundation of U.S.-EU relations [2][3]. - Trump's "America First" stance erodes the mutual trust that has historically underpinned transatlantic relations, as allies feel blamed for issues like trade deficits [3]. Group 3: Diplomatic Relations - The tariffs have deepened rifts within the transatlantic alliance, with strong reactions from EU leaders emphasizing the need to defend European interests [2][5]. - The EU's response includes a unified stance against U.S. actions, indicating a shift towards strategic autonomy and reduced reliance on the U.S. [3][5]. Group 4: Soft Power Dynamics - The tariffs have triggered a backlash that diminishes U.S. global reputation and moral authority, leading to a "negative soft power" effect [4][6]. - The EU and Mexico are actively seeking to strengthen their own soft power and reduce dependence on the U.S., which could lead to a more fragmented international order [6].

Group 1 - The market anticipates that Trump's plan to sanction Russian oil will strengthen supply-side soft power, leading to an increase in oil prices [1][4] - As of July 11, West Texas Intermediate crude oil futures settled at $68.45 per barrel, up 2.82%, while Brent crude oil futures settled at $70.36 per barrel, up 2.51% [1] - The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that the global oil market may be tighter than it appears, despite signs of oversupply, due to increased refinery processing to meet summer travel demand [2][3] Group 2 - The current oil price fluctuations are a result of the interplay between supply-side sanctions expectations and demand-side refinery needs, particularly from China [3][4] - The IEA's report indicates that the increase in refinery processing to meet summer demand masks the apparent oversupply, highlighting the strength of demand-side soft power [4] - Saudi Arabia's crude oil exports to China reached a record high of 1.57 million barrels per day in June, reflecting strong demand from China [2][4] Group 3 - Trump's anticipated sanctions on Russian oil are seen as a way to reshape global energy trade rules, which could lead to increased market anxiety over supply disruptions [4] - Historical precedents show that U.S. sanctions on countries like Venezuela and Iran have previously led to oil price increases of 1% to 2% [4] - The interplay of policy actions and market expectations often overshadows traditional supply-demand dynamics, indicating a shift in how oil prices are influenced [3][4]