自从俄乌冲突爆发以来，全球能源市场发生了巨大的变化。美国不断对俄罗斯能源产业实施制裁，并努 力说服其他国家减少从俄罗斯进口石油，试图削弱俄罗斯的主要财政来源——能源出口。然而，在西方 主导的这一"能源围堵"行动中，印度的立场格外引人注目。印度不仅没有减少从俄罗斯的石油采购，反 而迅速将俄罗斯提升为其最大原油供应国。即便美国对印度征收了25%的惩罚性关税，印度依然坚定地 维持与俄罗斯的能源合作。 那么，为什么美国的制裁在印度面前难以奏效？是什么支撑着印度在面对美国的外交和经济压力时，依 然坚持从俄罗斯购买石油？ 在考底利耶经济论坛上，印度外长苏杰生公开回应称，印美两国在贸易问题上存在显著分歧。他对美国 征收25%高额关税、干涉印度从俄罗斯购买能源表示强烈不满，并称这一做法"不公正"，实质上是无理 施压。苏杰生的言论并非情绪化，而是针对美国一系列针对印度的贸易限制措施的直接回应。此前，由 于印美未能达成自由贸易协议，美国已对部分印度商品征收25%的关税。 对印度来说，确保能源供应的稳定性至关重要，因为它直接关系到经济增长和社会稳定。在全球油价剧 烈波动的背景下，俄罗斯的石油不仅供应稳定，而且价格具有明显竞争优势。 ...

这场看似不对等的较量背后，是印度掐准了三大底牌：俄油每吨省89美元的年均节省额、对美国市场仅占GDP4.2%的低依赖度，以及全球南 方国家反双重标准的集体情绪。 "我们每进口三桶油，就有一桶来自俄罗斯。 这不是选择题，而是生存题。 一个月内，美国对印度连砍两刀关税，先因贸易协议谈不拢加征25%，再以"购买俄油加剧乌克兰冲突"为由追加25%，部分印度输美商品税率 飙至50%。 但印度不仅拒绝削减34%的俄油进口份额，反而加速与俄罗斯签署军购协议、推动金砖国家扩容，甚至让莫迪四次拒接特朗普电话。 当特朗普的关税大棒撞上莫迪的"战略自主"，一场重新定义新兴经济体与西方关系的博弈正在上演。 2025年7月31日，特朗普以"印度设置贸易壁垒"为由，对印度输美商品征收25%基础关税。 不到一周后的8月6日，美国再以"印度购买俄罗斯 石油"为名追加25%惩罚性关税，使印度成为美国税率最高的贸易伙伴之一。 两项关税精准打击印度对美出口的"命脉品类"，服装、宝石和汽车零部件，这些领域占印度对美出口总额的50%以上，涉及数百万就业岗 位。 印度外长苏杰生直接在公开场合点破美国的双重标准："欧盟的匈牙利长期进口俄油，德国2024年 ...

普京选择在瓦尔代俱乐部这个场合抛出这句谚语绝非偶然。这里汇聚了全球顶尖的政治学者、外交官和媒体人，他的每一句话都会被放大解读。用西方文明 源头的智慧来批判今日西方的政策，这种文化上的反击比单纯的政治谴责更具穿透力。古罗马的朱庇特神庙早已倒塌，但"神与牛"的阶级隐喻却在现代国际 关系中找到了新的化身。 值得玩味的是，就在同一场合，普京明确表示恢复对美关系符合俄罗斯利益。批评与合作意愿并存，这种看似矛盾的态度恰恰揭示了国际关系的本质——没 有永恒的敌人，只有永恒的利益。当美国政府在联合国讲台上高谈规则时，其能源政策的双重标准却让所有听众暗自摇头。 索契的会场灯光聚焦，普京缓缓道出那句古罗马谚语时，整个国际舆论场仿佛被投入一块巨石。这句"朱庇特可行之事，耕牛不可为"在今天的政治语境中， 恰如其分地剥开了包裹在道德外衣下的强权逻辑。当美国一面阻止他国购买俄罗斯能源，一面自己却悄悄进口俄浓缩铀时，这句两千年前的警句突然在现实 政治中复活了。 国际政治舞台上从不缺少双重标准，但如此赤裸裸的能源政策仍让人侧目。华盛顿的决策者们似乎忘记了一个基本事实：在全球化市场中，能源流动如同血 液在血管中循环，强行阻断只会让整个机体受损 ...

欧洲人这股火气，不是平白无故烧起来的。这支 "全球坚定" 船队太让人揪心了，从西班牙巴塞罗那出 发时，足足凑了 50 艘民用船，有渔船、有游艇，五花八门的，船上 500 多人来自 40 多个国家，全是自 愿报名的普通人，里头还有欧洲议会的议员，最出名的就是瑞典那个 "环保少女" 通贝里。他们船上装 的可不是别的，全是加沙急缺的救命东西 —— 大米、婴儿配方奶粉、药品、医疗设备，联合国都说 了，加沙 230 多万人快断粮断药了，这些物资就是续命的希望。 可谁能想到，这趟送爱心的航程，硬生生变成了闯 "鬼门关"。通贝里接受路透社采访时就说了，每晚 都有无人机在头顶盘旋，耳边时不时传来爆炸声，船上还被扔过不明物体。另一个叫阿卡尔的志愿者更 直白，跟 NBC 记者说 "国际水域感觉就像战场，炸弹接二连三地落下，却没人来救我们"。以色列早就 放了狠话，说要 "用一切办法阻止船队"，先是干扰船队的通信信号，后来干脆动了手，10 月 1 号夜 里，以军直接登船，视频里都能听到 "举起手来" 的怒吼，三艘船被登上，还有一艘遭了故意冲撞，高 压水炮对着其他船猛喷，幸好没死人，但船都受了损。 欧洲愤怒了。 已经是深夜，在希腊雅典 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the recent surge in international recognition of the State of Palestine, with 152 out of 193 UN member states acknowledging it, while the US remains the only permanent member of the Security Council not to do so [1] - The article highlights the stark contrast between the international community's support for Palestine and the absence of the US and Israel from discussions, emphasizing Netanyahu's firm stance against the establishment of a Palestinian state [1] - The article raises questions about the selective application of international law, noting that the same legal framework that facilitated Israel's establishment seems ineffective for Palestine, pointing to a historical pattern of double standards [1] Group 2 - The article introduces the concept of double standards in international law, where countries often act inconsistently regarding human rights and trade norms, undermining the legitimacy of institutions like the UN and World Bank [2] - A discussion among experts defines double standards as the differential treatment of similar situations without sufficient justification, revealing how powerful nations manipulate international law to serve their interests [2][3] - The article emphasizes the need for inclusive dialogue to address the challenges posed by double standards, as the credibility of the international legal system is fragile and requires protection [3] Group 3 - The article explores the historical context of double standards, suggesting that they are not a new phenomenon but rather a consistent feature of state behavior, particularly in the context of international law [8][9] - It discusses the implications of double standards in various fields of international law, including human rights, immigration, and climate law, highlighting the need for consistent application of legal principles [6][10] - The article also notes that the perception of double standards can lead to a crisis of legitimacy for international law, particularly when powerful states disregard legal norms while expecting compliance from weaker nations [27][29]

Core Viewpoint - The European Union (EU) is asserting its independence in deciding on tariffs against China, rejecting pressure from the United States, particularly from the Trump administration, to impose such tariffs as part of a broader strategy against Russia [1][3][4]. Group 1: EU's Stance on Tariffs - EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that the EU intends to make its own decisions regarding tariffs on China, effectively rejecting U.S. demands [3][4]. - Von der Leyen emphasized the importance of maintaining partnerships with countries like India, indicating that the EU is not willing to comply with U.S. requests that could jeopardize these relationships [4][5]. - French President Emmanuel Macron echoed this sentiment, asserting that Europe will independently conduct its foreign policy towards China to mitigate risks rather than create instability [6][11]. Group 2: EU's Relationship with the U.S. and Russia - The EU recognizes the U.S. desire for it to impose tariffs on China as a means to pressure Russia, but it believes its current sanctions against Russia are sufficient [4][8]. - There is a clear division between the EU and the U.S. regarding the approach to sanctions, with the EU preferring targeted measures directly related to Russia [6][8]. - The EU is cautious about the potential repercussions of aligning too closely with U.S. policies, particularly in light of past experiences where it faced backlash from China for similar actions [8][11]. Group 3: Challenges Facing the EU - The EU is in a difficult position, having made significant concessions in previous trade negotiations with the U.S., and now facing pressure to act against China without clear benefits [11][14]. - The EU's strategy of asserting its autonomy in foreign policy has been questioned, as it struggles to balance its relationships with both the U.S. and Russia while maintaining its own interests [12][14]. - The ongoing conflict in Ukraine complicates the EU's position, as it must navigate U.S. expectations while managing its energy needs and relations with Russia [14].

转自：智通财经 【哈马斯谴责美政府"双标"：对加沙冲突升级负有直接责任】智通财经9月16日电，据央视新闻，巴勒 斯坦伊斯兰抵抗运动（哈马斯）当地时间16日凌晨发表声明，强烈谴责美国总统特朗普关于哈马斯转移 被扣押人员的言论，称其"公然偏袒以色列"，并"体现出双重标准"，完全无视以色列对加沙地带的大规 模袭击。声明提到，以色列对卡塔尔的袭击，以及以色列试图在哈马斯谈判代表团讨论美国停火提案时 实施暗杀，表明内塔尼亚胡政府正在阻碍和平进程。声明批评以色列总理内塔尼亚胡正"摧毁一切达成 释放停火与人员交换协议的可能"，而美国政府在知情的情况下仍支持以色列总理内塔尼亚胡的政策。 声明称，因其支持与误导政策，美国政府对冲突升级负有直接责任。 ...

泽连斯基的言论在社交媒体上引发印度网民不满。部分印度网民与媒体指出，欧洲国家也正在从俄罗斯 进口能源，同时向乌克兰提供援助，质疑泽连斯基的表态是"双重标准"，呼吁他应该因此拒绝接受来自 欧洲国家的军事援助。印度外交部不久前表示，美方对印度加征关税"不公平、不公正、不合理"。 印度近来积极推动通过外交途径结束俄乌冲突。上个月，莫迪与泽连斯基进行了两次通话，印度外长苏 杰生还与乌克兰外长瑟比加举行会晤。印度政府重申，愿为推动停火与对话发挥建设性作用。 来源：环球时报 泽连斯基支持美国对印度加征关税，印度网民强烈不满。 泽连斯基支持美国对印度加征关税 图源：美国广播公司 综合《印度时报》等印媒以及俄罗斯卫星通讯社9月8日报道，在接受采访谈到印度时，乌克兰总统泽连 斯基表示，他支持美国对与俄罗斯保持经贸往来的国家加征关税。此番言论在社交媒体上引发印度网民 强烈不满。 当地时间9月7日播出的美国广播公司（ABC）节目中，泽连斯基在接受采访时说："我认为对继续与俄 罗斯做生意的国家征收关税的想法是正确的。"在节目主持人提及印度总理莫迪时，泽连斯基给出了上 述回答，但没有直接点名印度。他还要求，在俄乌冲突持续的背景下，"必 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. has imposed a significant 50% tariff on Indian goods, marking a rare instance of such high tariffs in international trade, with only Brazil and India facing similar penalties [1] Group 1: U.S.-India Trade Relations - The U.S. government has unilaterally increased tariffs on Indian goods, raising the total tariff rate to 50% after previously imposing a 25% tariff [1] - This decision reflects a shift in U.S. policy towards India, particularly in light of India's role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its energy import structure [3][5] Group 2: Accusations Against India - U.S. officials have attempted to shift the blame for the Russia-Ukraine conflict onto India, labeling it as "Modi's war" and claiming that India’s actions have financial implications for U.S. taxpayers [3][7] - The narrative presented by U.S. officials suggests that India's purchase of discounted Russian oil is directly contributing to the ongoing conflict and increasing the financial burden on American citizens [7] Group 3: Double Standards in U.S. Policy - There is a notable discrepancy in how the U.S. treats India compared to China regarding energy imports from Russia, with U.S. officials defending China's actions while criticizing India's [7] - The U.S. Treasury Secretary has differentiated between the nature of oil imports by China and India, highlighting a perceived double standard in U.S. foreign policy [7]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government has imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods, raising the total tariff to 50%, citing India's opportunistic purchase of Russian oil amid the Ukraine conflict as the reason for this "secondary sanction" measure [1][7]. Group 1: U.S. Perspective on India's Actions - White House trade advisor Peter Navarro characterized India's reliance on Russian oil as "opportunistic," noting that India was not a significant buyer of Russian energy before the Ukraine conflict but dramatically increased purchases afterward [4][10]. - Navarro emphasized that India's actions undermine global efforts to isolate the Russian economy, as the country has become a key market for Russian oil, with imports now accounting for 37% of India's total oil imports, making it the second-largest buyer after China [4][5]. - The U.S. views India's role as not just a buyer but as a "payment and transit center" for Russian oil, converting sanctioned oil into high-value exports and providing Russia with much-needed dollars [5][7]. Group 2: India's Response and Geopolitical Implications - India has strongly reacted to the U.S. tariffs, arguing that it is being treated unfairly and highlighting the double standards of the West, as the U.S., Europe, and China have also been purchasing Russian energy without facing similar consequences [8][10]. - The U.S. acknowledges past purchases by these countries but distinguishes them from India's actions, viewing India's significant increase in purchases post-sanctions as unacceptable opportunism [10][12]. - The ongoing trade tensions have raised concerns about India's diplomatic alignment, especially as it engages with both Russia and China, leading to fears in the U.S. regarding the sale of advanced military equipment to India [12].