来源：环球时报 近期，美国对委内瑞拉采取军事行动，公开觊觎格陵兰岛主权，以及白宫办公厅副主任米勒发出"当今 世界由实力、武力与权力主宰"的表态，导致"势力范围"这一源自19世纪殖民扩张时代的旧概念再次被 频繁提及。在部分战略界人士看来，以半球或区域为单位重新划分势力范围，通过单边胁迫、军事威慑 和制度排他，确立政治、经济和安全特权，似乎可以成为塑造所谓"后自由主义国际秩序"的工具。但实 际上，这是对当今国际体系运行逻辑的严重误判，存在多重脱离现实、相互矛盾的悖论。 首先是历史的悖论。势力范围是特定历史条件下的权宜安排，其前提是力量高度集中、制度高度排他， 被纳入势力范围的国家和地区几乎不具备制度性反抗空间，更谈不上战略自主。但在21世纪的当下，主 权平等、不干涉他国内政早已成为国际关系基本准则，各国在国际法框架下享有平等地位和外交政策的 自主权，"大国决定一切"的时代加速退出历史舞台。身份认同建构和战略自主成为各国的主要诉求，中 小国家不再只是被动接受大国安排，而是通过多边机制、区域组织和议题联盟，主动塑造国际规则和议 程。同时，经济全球化与数字化革命深刻重塑国际体系，供应链、产业链高度交织，任何试图通过地缘 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the U.S. military action against Venezuela, which is seen as an imperialistic move to control the country and its resources, particularly oil [2][3][4] - The U.S. aims to reassert its influence in Latin America, with a focus on securing strategic resources and diminishing its international obligations [3][4] - The military intervention is characterized as a "war for oil," with Venezuela's vast oil reserves being a primary target for U.S. interests [6][8] Group 2 - The articles highlight the historical context of U.S.-Venezuela relations, noting that previous nationalization efforts by former President Hugo Chávez have led to ongoing tensions [6][8] - The U.S. military action is framed as a violation of international law, with widespread condemnation from various countries and organizations, emphasizing the need for adherence to international norms [10][11] - The potential implications of U.S. control over Venezuela's resources could destabilize global energy markets and undermine the transition to green energy [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The recent U.S. actions against Venezuela have raised international concerns, with implications for U.S.-Russia relations, particularly regarding the ongoing Ukraine conflict [1][3]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Implications - The U.S. has reportedly "kidnapped" Venezuelan President Maduro, which is seen as a significant blow to Russia, a key ally of Venezuela [3]. - Fiona Hill, a former U.S. National Security Council official, revealed that Russia had informally suggested a deal where the U.S. could act freely in Venezuela in exchange for U.S. concessions in Ukraine [1][3]. - The U.S. and Russia are believed to be discussing ways to end the Ukraine conflict, with Russia aiming to maintain a balance without making significant concessions [3]. Group 2: Russia's Response - Russia has condemned the U.S. actions, calling them a violation of international law and demanding the release of Venezuela's legitimate president [4]. - Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, criticized the U.S. for its actions, suggesting that such behavior could lead to broader conflicts [3][4]. - Russia's representative at the UN emphasized that the U.S. actions signify a return to lawlessness, which could destabilize other nations [4].

Group 1 - The article discusses Trump's vision of a world dominated by three major powers: the United States, China, and Russia, suggesting a potential new global order where each country has its own sphere of influence [1][3] - Trump's recent actions indicate a desire to normalize trade relations with Russia and engage China in discussions to mitigate the impacts of the ongoing trade war [1][3] - Observers note that Trump's approach lacks a strategic vision for global order, focusing instead on expanding U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere, including ambitions regarding Greenland and Canada [3][4] Group 2 - Despite facing rejections from allies, Trump and his administration continue to pursue policies aimed at increasing U.S. influence, as evidenced by Vice President Pence's visit to military bases in Greenland [4][6] - Secretary of State Rubio's visits to Latin America and the Caribbean highlight efforts to manage immigration and exert pressure on regional governments, reflecting a broader strategy of influence [6] - The article suggests that Trump's handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict aligns with a concept of spheres of influence, raising concerns among traditional allies about the potential weakening of U.S. presence in Europe and Asia [6][7]