各位好啊。今天我继续来说说委内瑞拉的情况。在绑架马杜罗这一事件发生之前一个月左右，特朗普就 向几位石油公司的高管发出了信号：做好准备（Get Ready）。虽然没有明说，但是美国在委内瑞拉周 边囤兵这么久，应该也能猜到。绑架之后特朗普更是兴奋了，张嘴闭嘴就是石油，要让美国在委内瑞拉 再次伟大。 可是这里有一个问题，现在美国已经是全球石油最大的出口国，国内并不缺油；全球的原油价格并不 高，现在也只有50几美元，增加供应只会导致油价继续降低；委内瑞拉出口的又都是重质原油，开采难 度高。那美国的公司把委内瑞拉的石油出口从90万桶每年提高到3000万桶每年，岂不是做的亏本生意？ 我想比较可靠的解释方向有两个。第一个，美国在墨西哥湾北部，从得克萨斯到路易斯安那州，有成片 的炼油厂，十大炼油厂有九家在这里，拥有全美国7成的炼油产能。 设计初衷，就是吸纳从墨西哥、加拿大、委内瑞拉的进口重质原油。2000年的时候，从这三个国家进口 的原油还平分秋色，基本各占1/3，可是最近一些年，从委内瑞拉进口的原油严重下降，已经基本降到 零，从加拿大的进口已经占了绝大多数，换句话说对加拿大（的重质原油）产生了严重依赖。 而加拿大又总跟特朗 ...

【#美国会让世界回到丛林法则时代吗#】#总统抓了总统# 当地时间1月8日，委内瑞拉临时总统德尔西· 罗德里格斯感谢中国谴责美国强行控制马杜罗总统及其妻子和侵略委内瑞拉的行径。2026新年伊始，总 统抓了总统，你能想到世界会有这样一个魔幻开局吗？除此之外，美国还暗示不排除通过"动用美国军 队"等"一系列选项"得到丹麦的格陵兰岛，在欧洲引发轩然大波。在美国强权高压的政策之下，世界会 倒退到"丛林法则"的时代吗？看起来，答案并不乐观。 ...

牛弹琴 追踪20多天后，美国还是动手了。 一国的国内法试图笼罩全球，这本身就是对主权平等原则的巨大冲击。 1月7日，在北大西洋公海，美军发动突袭，扣押了一艘悬挂俄罗斯旗帜的大型油轮。 看监控视频，美军士兵从直升机上突降而下，然后迅速掌控油轮，船员被迫举手投降，油轮随后调转方 向前往英国。 油轮附近，还有几艘俄罗斯的护航军舰。 请注意。 1，公海。 按照很多人的概念，在公海上，只要你不杀人越货，一般不受任何人管辖。但美国偏不，一直紧追不 放，哪怕已经远离美国本土几千公里，仍旧要扣押。 这揭示了一个冷酷的现实：在国际政治的深水区，规则的边界往往由最强大的舰队来划定。 2，油轮。 按照美国的说法，这艘油轮受美国制裁，企图从委内瑞拉运油。美国国防部长赫格塞思声称，美国对委 内瑞拉石油实施的封锁，"在世界任何地方"都有效。 3，俄罗斯。 这艘油轮，最初名为"贝拉1"号，美方追踪途中，油轮改为悬挂俄罗斯国旗，称受俄罗斯保护。俄方派 出一艘潜艇和其他海军舰艇护航，俄还向美国发送外交照会，要求美国放弃跟踪。但结果都不管用。 当外交照会遇上武装直升机，纸面上的抗议与天空中的轰鸣，构成了当代国际博弈中一幅极具象征意义 的画面。 ...

江时学表示，"在这种荒诞的现实面前，我们所倡导的构建人类命运共同体的必要性反而得到了进一步 凸显。" 据新华社，美国总统特朗普4日号称，美国已"掌控"委内瑞拉，并对委内瑞拉代理总统罗德里格斯发出 威胁，称她如"不做正确的事"将付出"沉重代价"。 当地时间3日凌晨，美国突袭委首都加拉加斯等地，强行控制委总统马杜罗夫妇并将他们带至美国。特 朗普当天公开宣称，美国将"管理"委内瑞拉，并表示美国石油企业已做好在委内瑞拉大举投资的准备， 以恢复委石油出口，"为美国赚钱"。 4日，特朗普还宣称，委内瑞拉可能不会是美国干预的最后一个国家。当被问及美国是否会对哥伦比亚 发动行动时，他说："听起来不错。" 外交部发言人林剑1月5日表示，无论国际风云如何变幻，中国始终做拉美和加勒比国家的好朋友、好伙 伴，中国对拉政策保持连续性和稳定性。林剑在当日例行记者会上表示，中方坚持不干涉内政原则，尊 重拉美人民选择，不以意识形态划线。中方同拉美国家的交往合作始终秉持平等相待、互利共赢的原 则，从不寻求势力范围，也不针对任何一方。"拉美和加勒比国家有权自主选择发展道路和合作伙伴。 中方愿同拉方一道继续团结协作应对国际风云变幻，以互利合作共谋 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Netherlands has imposed restrictions on ASML, citing "national security," effectively stripping Chinese shareholders of their normal control rights, which has been met with strong opposition from China [1][3]. Group 1: Company Actions - The Netherlands has taken aggressive actions against ASML, which are perceived as a blatant intervention and a form of plunder, indicating that there are external influences behind these moves [3]. - Dutch courts have revealed that the U.S. has communicated demands to the Netherlands regarding changes in ASML's management and governance structure to avoid sanctions under the "penetration rules" [3]. Group 2: Industry Implications - The actions against ASML coincide with the Netherlands' efforts to establish a "European Semiconductor Alliance" aimed at achieving strategic autonomy in critical semiconductor technologies [3]. - The U.S. "penetration rules" are seen as damaging to international trade order and global supply chain stability, which could harm the legitimate rights of Chinese investors and undermine trust among all international investors [4]. - The European automotive industry has expressed concerns that disruptions in ASML's chip supply could severely impact their operations, highlighting the interconnectedness of global supply chains [4]. Group 3: Broader Context - The Netherlands' actions are viewed as aligning with U.S. interests, which may ultimately backfire and harm its own economic development [4]. - The narrative suggests that reliance on coercive tactics and unilateral actions is outdated in the current globalized environment, urging a shift away from such "pirate" mentalities [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of recent tariff agreements between the United States and various countries, highlighting a shift from a rules-based international trade system to one dominated by power dynamics, particularly emphasizing the unequal nature of these agreements [4][5][9]. Summary by Sections Tariff Agreements - The United States has reached tariff agreements with several countries, including the EU, which will eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial products, such as a 10% tariff on automobiles [7][8]. - Other countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam have also agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs on U.S. products, with Indonesia canceling tariffs on 99% of U.S. goods [7][8]. Impact on Global Trade - The agreements signify a departure from the World Trade Organization's (WTO) principle of Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) treatment, which could harm emerging and developing countries' access to markets [9]. - The fragmentation of global trade is highlighted, as countries like India and Brazil resist entering into unequal agreements with the U.S., while China responds with export controls [9][10]. Risks to International Order - The article warns of the risks associated with the collapse of a transparent WTO system, which could lead to increased inequality in international trade and hinder the growth of emerging economies [9]. - The potential for a divided global economy is discussed, with the emergence of distinct blocs centered around the U.S. and China, reminiscent of historical economic divisions that led to conflict [11][12].

Group 1 - The overall trend of the current era is characterized by a lack of pretense, with individuals no longer pretending to be something they are not [2][4][14] - There exists a duality of personal and collective truths, where individual realities are often overshadowed by the larger societal narrative [3][8] - The concept of a "Primordial Soup" suggests that the emotional and spiritual experiences of people across the globe are increasingly homogenized, transcending national boundaries [3][4] Group 2 - The absence of pretense can lead to a breakdown of social norms, making it easier for individuals to abandon their responsibilities [5][16] - The historical context of blind admiration between cultures highlights the tendency to idealize others while neglecting the complexities of one's own society [6][8] - The notion of "Fake it till you make it" reflects the importance of maintaining a facade in social interactions, as it can foster expectations and aspirations [10][12]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the fragile ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran, which is seen as a temporary halt to ongoing conflicts rather than a long-term resolution [1][3][4] - The ceasefire was announced by Trump, involving two 12-hour periods of cessation of hostilities, but the details of the agreement remain unclear, leading to confusion regarding the sequence of attacks and responses [2][3] - Experts express skepticism about the durability of the ceasefire, citing the lack of formal documentation, clear procedures, and enforcement mechanisms, which lowers the cost of violating the agreement [3][6] Group 2 - The U.S. has been criticized for its role in escalating tensions in the region, with Trump's administration being described as increasingly aggressive and interventionist, undermining its image in the international community [7][8] - There are conflicting reports regarding the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, with some intelligence suggesting that the strikes only delayed Iran's nuclear program rather than destroying it [5][6] - The current geopolitical landscape in the Middle East may shift towards a "law of the jungle" approach, where power dynamics dictate interactions, potentially leading to more confrontational strategies rather than diplomatic negotiations [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the aggressive actions of the United States regarding Iran's nuclear program, highlighting the use of military force and unilateral actions that undermine international law and order [1][2][3]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and International Response - The U.S. has escalated its military involvement in Iran, moving from tacit support of Israeli attacks to direct airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, reflecting a pattern of coercive diplomacy [1][2]. - Experts criticize the U.S. for bypassing the United Nations and engaging in unilateral military actions, which they view as a significant threat to international order and a violation of the UN Charter [2][4]. - The actions of the U.S. are seen as a manifestation of "jungle law," where military power is used to impose its will on other nations, leading to a loss of credibility and trust in the U.S. on the global stage [2][7]. Group 2: Risks of Nuclear Proliferation - The military actions against Iran are perceived as a double standard, as the U.S. supports Israel, which is believed to possess nuclear weapons, while targeting Iran under the pretext of preventing nuclear proliferation [4][5]. - Analysts warn that the U.S. strikes could trigger a nuclear arms race, as other nations may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear capabilities for self-defense [4][5]. - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned the use of military force against nuclear facilities, emphasizing that such actions threaten global security and undermine diplomatic efforts [4][6]. Group 3: Impact on International Relations - The U.S. military intervention is damaging its global image and could lead to increased hostility towards American policies, as many countries view these actions as imperialistic and reckless [7]. - Experts argue for a return to multilateral diplomacy and respect for international law, emphasizing that military solutions are not viable for resolving international disputes [7].

Group 1 - The article discusses the significant geopolitical changes over the past two decades, particularly focusing on the Ukraine conflict and the evolution of the Iran nuclear issue, highlighting the unexpected escalation of violence and international tensions [1][2]. - The expansion of NATO, contrary to earlier promises made to Russia, is identified as a key factor that has contributed to the current instability in Ukraine, which is described as a "powder keg" situation [2]. - The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is noted as a pivotal moment that led to increased tensions, with subsequent military actions by Israel against Iranian targets further complicating the situation [2][3]. Group 2 - The article emphasizes the perception that the U.S. government relies on military force as a primary means of achieving its objectives, as evidenced by recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities [3]. - The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is highlighted, with criticism directed at U.S. policies that appear to disregard civilian casualties in favor of military objectives [2][3]. - The narrative suggests a regression in political civilization, where deceit and the violation of international norms have become commonplace, reflecting a troubling trend in global governance [3].