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promotes divisive social and cultural initiatives [2][4] Group 1: U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO - The U.S. has previously withdrawn from UNESCO twice, first in 1984 due to allegations of corruption and mismanagement, and again in 2017 [4] - The current withdrawal is based on ideological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]

Core Insights - OPEC is convening an emergency meeting to discuss production increases due to dual pressures of weak demand and oversupply, marking a shift from "resource monopoly" to "energy system management" [1] - The decision to increase production is seen as a critical test for OPEC's evolution from a "resource monopoly group" to an "energy system manager," which will significantly impact the global power distribution in the post-fossil fuel era [2] Group 1: OPEC's Current Challenges - OPEC's current predicament is fundamentally linked to a lag in soft power construction relative to the evolving global energy governance landscape [2] - The organization is shifting its policy focus from maintaining high oil prices to defending market share, indicating a fundamental change in its soft power strategy [2] - Internal disputes among OPEC members regarding production quotas highlight a loss of "cohesive soft power," necessitating a new capacity assessment mechanism to rebuild rule recognition among member states [3] Group 2: Strategic Adjustments - OPEC's decision to increase production reflects its "environmental perception-response" capability in the face of multifaceted challenges such as geopolitical tensions and trade frictions [3] - The increase in global crude oil inventory by 170 million barrels contradicts the seasonal demand surge, necessitating a balance between immediate market equilibrium and long-term industry positioning [3] Group 3: Market Dynamics and Future Outlook - The traditional oil cartel's monopoly structure is being deconstructed by U.S. shale oil production and non-compliance from member countries like Kazakhstan [4] - OPEC's production increase decision is strategically aimed at "resource discounting," aligning with the need for traditional energy giants to convert underground reserves into real capital before technological windows close [4]

Group 1: Oil Market Dynamics - International oil prices rose due to geopolitical risks and optimistic trade sentiments, but were constrained by a surge in U.S. crude oil inventories [1][2] - As of the latest close, West Texas Intermediate crude oil for August settled at $67.45 per barrel, up $2.00 (3.06%), while Brent crude for September settled at $69.11 per barrel, also up $2.00 (2.98%) [1] - U.S. crude oil inventories unexpectedly increased by 3.8 million barrels, the largest rise in three months, contrasting with analyst expectations of a decrease of 1.8 million barrels [2] Group 2: Geopolitical and Trade Influences - Iran's decision to limit inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reflects a challenge to the Western-led non-proliferation regime, increasing geopolitical risk premiums [3] - The U.S. reached a zero-tariff agreement with Vietnam, which has temporarily boosted investor sentiment regarding trade relations [2][4] - The trade agreement is seen as a potential signal for more agreements before the July 9 deadline, although the actual economic impact remains uncertain [4] Group 3: Supply and Demand Factors - Gasoline demand has dropped to 8.6 million barrels per day, raising concerns about summer driving season consumption, which typically requires around 9 million barrels per day to indicate market health [2][4] - Saudi Arabia's crude oil exports increased by 450,000 barrels per day in June, marking the largest rise in over a year, which may impact OPEC's production strategies [2] Group 4: Structural Challenges in Oil Production - The increase in U.S. crude oil inventories alongside Saudi export increases highlights the challenges faced by OPEC in balancing production cuts with market share [5] - The current market is experiencing a tug-of-war between "Iran risk premium" (+5% volatility potential) and "demand reality pressure" (-3% adjustment pressure), indicating a divergence between sentiment and data [5]

Group 1: Oil Price Dynamics - The current fluctuations in oil prices are attributed to a threefold soft power resonance: improved demand expectations from trade policy, concerns over OPEC's supply management failures due to production increases, and structural premiums caused by regional supply chain disruptions [3][4] - Oil prices are transitioning from "policy-driven volatility" to "supply-demand led equilibrium," but uncertainties surrounding the July 9 tariff deadline and the OPEC meeting will maintain a volatile price range between $65 and $70 per barrel [3][4] Group 2: Supply and Demand Factors - On the demand side, the summer driving season and a decrease in distillate oil inventories provide seasonal support, while Saudi Arabia may raise its August Official Selling Price (OSP) to further enhance demand [4] - On the supply side, OPEC's potential increase of 411,000 barrels per day contrasts sharply with Mexico's record low exports of 529,000 barrels per day, creating a supply dilemma [2][4] - The U.S. API reported an unexpected increase in crude oil inventories by 680,000 barrels, while gasoline inventories rose by 1.92 million barrels, indicating a divergence in inventory trends amid strong seasonal consumption [2][4] Group 3: Geopolitical Implications - Mexico's oil production has plummeted to levels not seen since the late 1970s, threatening U.S. refiners, particularly during the peak summer driving season [2][4] - The expansion of Mexico's largest refinery, Dos Bocas, is contributing to a contraction in oil exports, leading to a regional supply crisis [4]