欧洲航空安全局那纸拖延令一出，整件事的底色就变了。 表面看是适航审定流程复杂、疫情拖慢脚步、系统集成尚待验证；实际呢？分明是一道软性围墙，把一架正在跑道尽头加速滑行的中国大飞机拦在欧洲市场 的入口外。 没人明说"不准进"，但三年起步的评估周期，配上空客订单排到2030年之后的现实，答案早已不言自明。 这不是技术障碍，是市场份额的防守。 波音接连出事，全球干线客机市场眼看只剩空客独撑，这时候C919真要飞进布鲁塞尔、巴黎、法兰克福，哪怕只占5%的座位运力，也足以让欧洲航空业的 神经绷紧。 他们不怕中国造飞机，怕的是这飞机飞得准、飞得稳、飞得比预期还便宜。 EASA执行董事弗洛里安·吉勒梅在接受《新工厂报》采访时，确实提到了设计验证未完成、部件测试仍需推进，也承认C919上80%的欧美供应商零部件早就 通过了各自认证。 问题卡在"整机集成评估"上——这不是技术死胡同，而是规则门槛的临时加高。 整机适航从来不只是零件拼装，可当全球主流机型基本都依赖相似供应链时，这套说辞就显得刻意。 吉勒梅本人也说过，C919"将对全球航空格局产生影响"。 这句话不是客套，是预警。 他清楚，商飞不是在玩概念，不是造个模型摆展厅，而是 ...

Group 1 - The escalation of US-China trade tensions has led to China's comprehensive control over rare earth exports, catching the Trump administration off guard and shaking the global supply chain [1] - European countries are increasingly anxious as the rare earth controls are set to take effect, particularly in the automotive industry, where major manufacturers warn of potential production halts within two months if the controls are implemented [3] - The EU believes that China's rare earth controls lack reasonable justification and pose a destructive threat to the global supply chain [3] Group 2 - Internal divisions have emerged within the EU regarding the response to China's actions, with Germany threatening to invoke the "Anti-Coercion Instrument," which some in Europe refer to as the "nuclear weapon of trade wars" [4] - China has stated that threats and pressure are not solutions to the problem, emphasizing that its rare earth controls are conducted in accordance with laws and regulations to ensure sustainable resource use and national security [4] - The EU's panic is not unfounded, as Western countries have relied on globalization for the past thirty years, outsourcing high-pollution, low-profit rare earth mining and refining to China while keeping high-value-added industry segments for themselves [6] Group 3 - The EU has repeatedly provoked China in its stance, as evidenced by sanctions against Chinese companies for allegedly assisting Russia in evading Western technology restrictions, which China firmly opposes [6] - China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has clarified that China is neither the creator of the Ukraine crisis nor a party to it, and it will respond resolutely to any form of coercion [6] - The EU's actions appear to be a strategy to test China's limits and gain leverage in rare earth negotiations [6]

Group 1: US Rare Earth Challenges - The US is heavily reliant on China for rare earth materials, with over 90% of deep-processed rare earth materials imported from China, creating significant supply chain vulnerabilities [3][9] - The US has faced difficulties in developing its domestic rare earth industry due to technological and electrical power shortcomings, particularly in the critical separation technology and aging electrical infrastructure [5][7] - The US's attempts to rebuild its rare earth supply chain are hindered by the need for long-term investment in technology and talent, with estimates suggesting it could take at least eight years and several billion dollars to achieve self-sufficiency [18][20] Group 2: China's Chip Industry Success - China has made significant strides in its semiconductor industry, transitioning from being the largest chip importer to achieving self-sufficiency in mid-to-low-end chips and becoming competitive in 5G and automotive chips [11][13] - The success of China's chip industry is attributed to the combination of institutional advantages and market vitality, with a focus on collaborative efforts across the entire supply chain [14] - The ongoing technological competition between China and the US highlights the importance of self-sufficiency and the risks associated with over-reliance on foreign supply chains [20] Group 3: Global Technology Competition - The competition between China and the US in technology sectors like rare earths and semiconductors is reshaping global industrial rules, with China actively pushing for changes in international standards and trade practices [16][20] - China's advancements in new materials and renewable energy are expected to shift the balance of power in global high-tech industries, potentially granting China greater influence over international regulations [20]

Core Viewpoint - The recent meeting of the State Council emphasizes the importance of strengthening the domestic circulation, particularly focusing on the self-sufficiency and completeness of the industrial and supply chains, which is essential for enhancing the resilience of industrial development [1][2]. Group 1: Importance of Self-Sufficient Supply Chains - A self-sufficient industrial and supply chain ensures stable supply of raw materials, equipment, and technology, mitigating risks of production disruptions [2]. - The stability of the supply chain is crucial for providing diverse and high-quality products, which in turn stimulates consumer spending [2]. - Self-sufficient supply chains facilitate the deep integration of industrial and innovation chains, enhancing the adaptability of the supply system to domestic demand [2]. Group 2: Focus on Key Areas - The goal of self-sufficiency is not to achieve complete self-reliance but to ensure control over critical areas such as chip manufacturing, basic software, and high-end equipment [2][3]. - The emphasis is on mastering core technologies through innovation and industrial upgrades to maintain supply even in extreme external conditions [2][3]. Group 3: Global Cooperation and Specialization - Equating self-sufficiency with isolation is a misunderstanding of global industrial development; true self-sufficiency involves enhancing core competitiveness within a global cooperative framework [3]. - Utilizing regional advantages and promoting specialized division of labor and inter-regional collaboration are vital for achieving self-sufficient supply chains [3]. Group 4: Continuous Improvement of Supply Chains - Continuous efforts to supplement, strengthen, and expand the supply chain are essential for enhancing self-sufficiency [4]. - Supplementing focuses on addressing weaknesses in the industrial chain to reduce reliance on foreign imports [4]. - Strengthening involves enhancing the competitiveness of existing industries and promoting their transformation towards high-end, intelligent, and green development [4]. - Expanding aims to cultivate emerging industries and broaden the industrial chain to create new economic growth points [4].

Core Insights - The ranking of global brands in China reveals a significant interdependence between the US and Chinese economies, with American brands numbering 57, placing them second in the list [1] Market Dependency - American brands have a substantial presence in the Chinese market, generating $1.2 trillion in revenue, which accounts for 7% of their global sales, surpassing direct trade volumes between the two countries [1] - This dependency is evident not only in traditional consumer goods but also in upstream supply chains, such as Intel chips and Microsoft operating systems [1] Supply Chain Complementarity - The competitiveness of American brands relies on China's manufacturing capabilities, exemplified by Apple's assembly of iPhones in China, which integrates supply chains from Japan and Taiwan [3] - The "China manufacturing + American brand" model fosters a symbiotic relationship, allowing US consumers to bypass tariffs through cross-border e-commerce [3] Consumption Structure Upgrade - The demand for high-end brands among Chinese consumers, with Apple ranking among the top three, reflects a trend of consumption upgrading [3] - The rise of domestic brands in sectors like 3C digital and home appliances, such as Huawei and Xiaomi, creates differentiated competition with American brands, shifting the market from a "one-way input" to a "bilateral competition" [3] Economic Policy and Industrial Competition - The relative advantage of American brands in China highlights both their global capabilities and vulnerabilities in the Chinese market [3] - For instance, Sam's Club in China outperforms its US counterparts, indicating American companies' reliance on the Chinese market for excess profits [3] - US government policies restricting Chinese investments in the US inadvertently strengthen the first-mover advantage of American brands in China [3] Technology Standards and Innovation Linkage - The ranking shows that American brands are predominantly in high-tech sectors, while Chinese brands excel in application scenario innovations, such as Xiaomi's ecosystem and Huawei's 5G [4] - This dynamic reflects a balance in the innovation chain, where the US leads in foundational technologies while China expands application ecosystems [4] Deep Insights - The intertwined nature of the US and Chinese economies is evident, with American companies leveraging brand premiums for high profits, while Chinese firms utilize manufacturing capabilities and market size for technological advancement [5] - This relationship is a result of globalized division of labor and suggests that future competition will increasingly focus on standard-setting in emerging areas like AI ethics and data sovereignty [5] - The ranking not only represents consumer preferences but also serves as a microcosm of the shifting economic strengths between the two nations [5]