Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the deterioration of trade relations between the United States and four countries: Spain, Switzerland, India, and Japan, as a result of Trump's tariff policies, which have led to significant backlash and countermeasures from these nations [1][3][5]. Group 1: Spain - Spain feels betrayed by Trump's tariff policies, which have become a significant burden on its economy [1]. - The Spanish government rejected Trump's demand to increase military spending to 5% of GDP, maintaining it at 2% [1]. - Spain canceled its plan to purchase F35 fighter jets, indicating a firm stance against U.S. pressure [1]. Group 2: Switzerland - Switzerland reacted strongly to nearly 40% tariffs imposed by the U.S., claiming unfair treatment due to a perceived trade deficit [3]. - The majority of Swiss exports to the U.S. consist of processed intermediate goods, such as gold and pharmaceuticals, rather than fully produced items [3]. - Switzerland is considering canceling its F35 fighter jet procurement plan, with a final decision expected in November [3]. Group 3: India - India, although not a formal ally, has been closely cooperating with the U.S. on issues related to China, but has become a target of Trump's tariffs [3]. - In response to U.S. dissatisfaction with India's oil trade with Russia, India decided to suspend the purchase of U.S. P8 patrol aircraft and canceled a planned visit from the U.S. trade representative [3]. Group 4: Japan - Japan believed it had reached a consensus with the U.S. on a 15% tariff cap, but the U.S. interpreted it as an additional tariff, leading to significant disagreements [5]. - Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba felt embarrassed by the situation, as he had hoped for concessions from the U.S. in exchange for Japanese compromises [5]. - Japanese media expressed concerns about the potential rise of China as a global leader, reflecting dissatisfaction with U.S. tariff policies [5]. Group 5: Overall Implications - The reactions from these countries indicate that Trump's tariff policies are facing increasing resistance, which could lead to further isolation of the U.S. in global trade [5]. - If Trump continues to uphold the "America First" stance, more countries may turn against the U.S., potentially resulting in a shift towards isolationism [5].

【环球时报报道 记者 白云怡】美国总统特朗普在第二任期开始后不久，印度总理莫迪就成为首批访问 华盛顿的外国领导人之一。当时两人互称"好朋友"，并共同设定了到2030年将双边贸易额提升至5000亿 美元的宏伟目标。然而不到半年，美印关系急转直下：美国宣布对印度进口商品征收总计50%的关税， 并威胁将因印度是金砖国家成员而再加征10%的关税。此外，美国还在购买俄油、涉巴基斯坦等问题上 屡屡挑战印度的"红线"。"这标志着两国关系出现惊人逆转。"英国广播公司（BBC）评论称，接下来， 新德里如何回应将决定印美关系的未来走向。据印度媒体报道，莫迪或将于9月底与特朗普在美国进行 会晤，商讨贸易及关税问题。 印美关系是否已经处在"十字路口"？印美矛盾升级，是否会让未来华盛顿拉拢新德里遏制中国的计划更 加难以施行？就以上相关问题，《环球时报》记者日前对印度知名学者、前总理瓦杰帕伊顾问苏廷德拉 ·库尔卡尼进行了专访。 印度民众当下带着 " 苦涩 " 情绪看美国 环球时报： 我们注意到，印美关系近期因关税问题紧张升级。据您了解，现在印度民众如何看待美国的 打压举措和当前的印美关系？ 库尔卡尼： 印度民众对美国的态度正变得更消极， ...

Core Viewpoint - The meeting at the White House on August 18, 2025, is a pivotal moment in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with European leaders uniting to address the potential shift in U.S. support under Trump's changing stance [1][3]. Group 1: European Strategy - European leaders have developed a "triple strategy" in response to Trump's unpredictable position, focusing on binding values and reconstructing security narratives [3]. - Macron emphasized that any peace agreement must include long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, framing it as an extension of European security architecture [3]. - The proposal for a collective defense mechanism similar to NATO's Article 5 aims to bind European security with Ukraine's fate, highlighting the importance of U.S. support for European strategic autonomy [3]. Group 2: Diplomatic Engagement - Finnish President Stubb plays a crucial role as a mediator, having established a personal rapport with Trump, which allows for informal communication regarding European positions [4]. - Stubb's "non-confrontational pressure" strategy aims to secure negotiation space without provoking Trump, emphasizing the need for a ceasefire before negotiations [4]. Group 3: Economic Considerations - German Chancellor Merz indicated that continued U.S. support for Ukraine could lead to substantial economic benefits for Europe in areas like energy cooperation and trade agreements [5]. - This approach aligns with Trump's transactional nature, potentially facilitating a compromise on the Ukraine issue while addressing U.S. interests in European defense markets [5]. Group 4: U.S. Political Dynamics - Trump's meeting serves as a test of his "America First" strategy, with a focus on short-term political gains ahead of the 2024 elections by promising to end the Ukraine war [7]. - His reluctance to make concessions is evident, as he publicly stated that Ukraine cannot reclaim Crimea, testing Europe's limits [7]. Group 5: Long-term Strategic Implications - The meeting reflects Trump's long-term strategy towards Russia, where he may consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for reduced U.S. military commitments [8]. - The U.S. administration's insistence on European alignment in defense spending and policies towards China further complicates transatlantic relations [9]. Group 6: Potential Outcomes - A compromise could stabilize the transatlantic alliance, providing Ukraine with a reprieve but potentially undermining European strategic autonomy [14]. - Conversely, if Trump maintains a hardline stance, Europe may accelerate defense integration, risking Ukraine's position in the geopolitical landscape [14].

Core Viewpoint - The "Big Beautiful Bill" proposed by Trump is set to reshape the economic, energy, and immigration policy landscape between the U.S. and Latin America, with significant implications for regional stability and U.S. relations with its long-term allies in the hemisphere [2][4]. Immigration Enforcement - The new legislation allocates $170 billion for immigration and border-related actions, including nearly $47 billion for border wall construction and funding for thousands of new immigration enforcement personnel and detention facilities [5]. - The bill aims to terminate the legal status of over one million individuals, significantly increasing the number of people eligible for deportation, which will place additional pressure on Central American countries to manage the return of their citizens [7]. Energy Policy and Key Minerals - The bill reverses tax incentives for clean energy technologies, contrasting sharply with the Biden administration's climate policies, which may hinder U.S. clean energy production and provide an opportunity for China to expand its influence in renewable energy sectors in Latin America [8]. - The cancellation of tax credits for critical minerals supply chains could impact global efforts to transition to renewable energy, while other regions continue to pursue energy transformation [8]. Remittance Taxation - The legislation imposes a federal tax on remittances, which could drive funds from formal channels to informal ones, negatively affecting the economies of Latin American countries reliant on remittances [11]. - The tax rate is set at 1%, lower than the initially proposed 5%, but could still lead to a decrease in remittance flows through formal channels due to tax avoidance strategies [11]. Economic Implications - The bill is projected to increase U.S. national debt by $3.3 trillion, potentially exacerbating the already fragile macroeconomic situation in the U.S. and negatively impacting regional economies in Latin America [15]. - The combination of reduced foreign aid, remittance taxation, and expanded immigration enforcement may lead to a long-term decoupling of Latin American economies from the U.S. if regional integration efforts are not strengthened [15].

Group 1 - The trade war initiated by former President Trump has led to ongoing turmoil in the global trade order, significantly impacting various industries and eliciting strong domestic opposition in the U.S. [1][3] - Trump's "America First" policy has resulted in multiple rounds of tariffs on goods from different countries, with a notable increase in tariffs on Chinese goods totaling 20% in early 2025, followed by further escalations affecting Japan, the EU, Switzerland, India, and Brazil [3][5] - The latest threat involves potential new tariffs on steel and chips, which could escalate to rates as high as 300%, causing panic among global enterprises, particularly in Southeast Asia [5][7] Group 2 - The semiconductor industry is under significant pressure, with the U.S. importing $46.3 billion worth of semiconductors in 2024, primarily from Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, while China accounts for only 3% [7] - The steel industry is also facing challenges, with the U.S. importing 28.86 million tons of steel in 2024, a 2.5% increase from 2023, with major suppliers including Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam [7] - Trump's tariffs have sparked strong backlash domestically, with a Pew Research Center survey indicating only 38% support for his policies, and 61% opposition, reflecting a decline in approval ratings [7][8] Group 3 - The interplay between Trump's tariff policies and the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions complicates the economic landscape, as rising import costs from tariffs contribute to inflation, making it difficult for the Fed to lower rates [8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant market turmoil following the Trump administration's announcement of "reciprocal tariffs," which led to a sharp decline in U.S. and global stock markets, highlighting the potential long-term economic implications of such trade policies [1][8][31]. Group 1: Market Reaction - U.S. stock markets experienced their largest single-day drop since 2020, with a total market value loss exceeding $6 trillion within two trading days [8][12]. - Major global markets, including Australia, South Korea, Japan, and Europe, faced severe declines, with Australia's S&P index plummeting by 6.4% and South Korea's index triggering a trading halt [12][13][21]. - The Singapore Strait Times index fell by 8.5% within 20 minutes, and European indices like Germany's DAX and the UK's FTSE saw declines exceeding 4% [13][21]. Group 2: Government Response - U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin downplayed the market volatility, asserting that short-term fluctuations should not be a concern and emphasizing a focus on long-term prosperity [3][8]. - Mnuchin claimed that Trump's tariff strategy has created significant negotiation leverage, with over 50 countries reportedly seeking trade negotiations with the U.S. [5][15]. - Despite the optimistic rhetoric, there is skepticism regarding the actual progress of these negotiations, as specific details remain undisclosed [15][36]. Group 3: Economic Implications - The tariffs are expected to have a detrimental impact on global commodity demand, affecting various industries and leading to significant stock price drops for companies like SK Hynix and BHP [19][21]. - Analysts warn that the ongoing trade conflict could result in a 0.3% reduction in U.S. GDP and an increase in the unemployment rate to 5.3% [31]. - The article highlights the potential for economic isolation for the U.S. as other countries may resist accepting what they perceive as "unequal treaties" [40][43]. Group 4: Internal Discontent - There are indications of internal discord within the Trump administration regarding trade policies, with some officials expressing concerns about the long-term economic consequences of the tariffs [25][36]. - Mnuchin's public support for Trump's strategy contrasts with reports of his personal frustrations with the tariff calculations, suggesting a potential for resignation [25][36]. Group 5: Global Trade Dynamics - The article notes that the tariffs have prompted retaliatory measures from countries like China, which announced a 34% tariff on U.S. goods, directly impacting critical sectors such as semiconductors and defense [31][38]. - The global trade landscape is shifting, with countries like Australia and New Zealand expressing significant distress over the economic fallout from U.S. policies, leading to currency depreciation and market instability [34][43].

Group 1 - The core issue raised by US Treasury Secretary Bessent at the G7 meeting was whether European leaders would be willing to impose secondary tariffs of up to 200% on China, which left them in silence, indicating the complexity of current international relations [1] - The US is attempting to shift the burden of opposing China onto its allies while being hesitant to initiate a new tariff war alone, reflecting a dilemma in US-China policy [1][3] - European countries are cautious about becoming collateral damage in a US-led tariff war against China, showing a preference for limited competition rather than full-scale trade conflict [3][5] Group 2 - The EU recognizes that imposing high tariffs alongside the US could provoke a strong retaliation from China, which is a risk they are unwilling to take [5] - The ongoing trade war between the US and China has taught many countries that such conflicts often result in mutual economic harm, leading to a reevaluation of trade strategies [5][7] - The concept of a "tariff alliance" proposed by Trump appears unrealistic as countries are increasingly aware that strengthening trade barriers may complicate global economic relations [7]

Core Viewpoint - The geopolitical landscape is undergoing significant changes, marked by the breakdown of the US-India alliance and the thawing of US-Russia relations, indicating a potential shift in global power dynamics [1][9]. Group 1: US-India Relations - Trump signed an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on Indian imports, signaling a deterioration in US-India relations [1]. - Modi's visit to China, after seven years, is seen as an attempt to pressure the US regarding tariff negotiations, highlighting the unraveling of the US-led Indo-Pacific strategy [3]. - The initial optimism for a trade agreement between the US and India has dissipated due to harsh tariff conditions imposed by the US, leading to a breakdown in negotiations [3]. Group 2: US-Europe Relations - The US has sidelined Europe in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine ceasefire negotiations, with the US and Russia planning a bilateral meeting without European involvement [5]. - Trump's administration has expressed dissatisfaction with European military spending and trade deficits, viewing European contributions as inadequate [7]. - The EU's trade surplus with the US amounted to €198.2 billion last year, which contradicts Trump's "America First" policy [7]. Group 3: Global Geopolitical Shifts - The rise of populism and extreme right-wing movements in Western societies, along with increasing unilateralism, is contributing to a fragmented international order [9]. - Trump's tariffs and withdrawal from international agreements are exacerbating global tensions and signaling a potential shift towards a multipolar world [9][11]. - The outcome of these geopolitical changes presents both challenges and opportunities for China, as the US may seek to consolidate its alliances against China while also facing potential discontent from its allies [11].

Core Viewpoint - The extension of tariffs against China is seen as a reluctant move by the U.S., with Trump feeling compelled to sign the order despite his dissatisfaction with the situation [1][4]. Group 1: Tariff Extension Context - Trump signed an executive order to extend tariffs until November 10, following China's announcement of a tariff truce [1]. - The joint statement from both sides confirmed the extension but lacked substantial agreements beyond this point [1][3]. - The extension of tariffs was anticipated, as ongoing trade issues between the U.S. and China have been exacerbated by Trump's "America First" policy [3]. Group 2: Political and Economic Implications - The tariff extension reflects broader geopolitical factors, indicating that the U.S. does not wish to escalate tensions further, as it lacks the power to force China into submission [3]. - Trump's approach has shifted to a more subdued tone, indicating his frustration with the current state of negotiations [2][4]. - The U.S. has faced challenges in trade negotiations with China, leading to a precarious position in international discussions [5]. Group 3: Domestic Pressures - Domestic pressures are mounting on Trump, particularly due to recent controversies and disappointing employment data, which have raised questions about the effectiveness of tariffs [7]. - Despite some fiscal benefits from tariffs, the general public has not felt significant advantages, leading to scrutiny of Trump's performance [7]. - Trump has been advocating for interest rate cuts to alleviate pressure on small businesses affected by tariffs, but the Federal Reserve has shown reluctance to lower rates [7][8]. Group 4: Economic Strategy - Trump's tax reform has aimed to stimulate corporate growth and employment, but the uncertain market environment raises doubts about companies' willingness to expand [8]. - The continuation of the tariff truce is seen as a necessary compromise for the U.S. to maintain stability in negotiations, despite Trump's personal dissatisfaction with the situation [8].

鉴于这些因素，美印"谈崩"其实有其必然性，而印度政府对此也有所察觉，在经济政策上已开始寻求其 他出路。面对美国政府高额关税压力，印度政府敦促企业加码支持"国货战略"，并考虑为出口商提供政 策支持。当前，印度政府正考虑加速推动印度本土品牌建设，印出口促进委员会将加强与印品牌资产基 金会的合作，合力开展"品牌发展计划"，把支持印度本土国货做到实处，并希望进一步拓宽国际市场， 前一阵子印度总理莫迪公开表示"希望全世界每个家庭的餐桌上都有印度品牌的食品"，也是出于这一政 策而转变心态。可以看出，在美国"关税大棒"的逼迫下，印度开始放下对美幻想，尝试以自力更生求经 济发展破局。 无论是制造业回流还是国际贸易的其他问题，仅靠关税政策无法解决其根本。美国政府的高额关税，在 加速推动世界贸易转型，改变各国对供应链和物流的规划，由国际贸易流动转向区域合作国家，逐 渐"就近取材"。分析指出，面对美国"关税大棒"，印度有可能进一步寻求贸易多元化，拓展与亚洲、东 盟、欧洲等国家的贸易合作网络，从而减缓美国关税政策造成的影响。美印之间后续局势演变，还需要 观望新的贸易谈判进展。 （文章来源：经济日报） 短期看，美国所提出的贸易条件印度 ...