以下文章来源于正解局 ，作者正解局 正解局 . 解读产业，发现价值。产业/城市/企业。 本文来自微信公众号： 正解局 ，作者： 正解局，原文标题：《中国，正在西部悄悄推进两个超 级"国家工程"》，头图来自：AI生成 上午的大阅兵，想必大家都看到了。 自豪，扬眉吐气。 不过，在首都热闹进行阅兵的同时，中国在西部也在加快推进两个超级"国家工程"，意义深远。 7月，雅江下游水电工程正式开工，高层亲自出席开工仪式。 8月，新藏铁路公司成立，投资超过4000亿元的"天路"即将开工。 根据初步计划，两个工程总投资超过1.6万亿元，超过2024年全国GDP的1%。 如此巨额的资金，同时砸向这片平均海拔超过4000米的"世界屋脊"，在人类历史上都是罕见的。 很难用经济逻辑解释，只能说，这是一个信号——一个关于中国未来发展重心、地缘战略的强烈信 号。 更宏大的图景正在浮现，中国正在西部地区布局落子，将深刻改变中国乃至整个亚洲的经济版图。 一、天量投资同时砸向"世界屋 脊" 为啥一个月不到，两大项目同时出现？因为时不我待。 时间上的巧合，暗示着战略上的必然。 雅江下游水电工程位于西藏林芝，规划5座梯级电站，总装机容量6000万- ...

Core Viewpoint - Ukraine's recent attack on the "Friendship" oil pipeline in Russia has severely hindered its chances of joining the European Union, with Hungary explicitly blocking any negotiations for membership [1][3][5]. Group 1: Hungary's Position - Hungary's Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjarto, has stated that Hungary will not agree to initiate the first round of negotiations regarding Ukraine's EU membership, effectively stalling the process [3]. - As long as Hungary maintains its stance, Ukraine's prospects for EU membership are virtually non-existent, drawing parallels to Turkey's prolonged wait for EU accession [3]. Group 2: Impact of Ukraine's Actions - The attack on the "Friendship" pipeline is viewed as a strategic misstep for Ukraine, as it has minimal impact on Russia but exacerbates existing tensions within the EU, particularly concerning energy security [5][6]. - The EU's position leans towards supporting Ukraine, but it must also consider the energy concerns of Eastern European members like Hungary and Slovakia [5]. - Ukraine's aggressive actions have alienated key EU neighbors, potentially isolating it in its geopolitical strategy and diminishing its leverage against Russia [6]. Group 3: Broader Geopolitical Implications - The situation presents an unexpected victory for Russia, as Ukraine's actions have inadvertently obstructed its own path to EU integration, which could leave it vulnerable in future negotiations with Russia [6]. - Ukraine's failure to secure EU membership could lead to a more precarious position in upcoming ceasefire talks, as it must also address disputes with neighboring countries like Hungary [6].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. has imposed a 50% tariff on Indian goods, prompting India to increase its oil imports from Russia by 10% to 20% in September, equating to an additional 150,000 to 300,000 barrels per day [1][6]. Group 1: U.S.-India Trade Relations - The U.S. aimed to deter countries from engaging in energy trade with Russia by imposing heavy tariffs on India, which included a 25% base tax followed by an additional 25% due to India's oil imports from Russia [1][5]. - Despite U.S. pressure, Indian Prime Minister Modi ignored multiple calls from Trump urging concessions, signaling a strong stance against U.S. demands [3][5]. Group 2: India's Response and Strategy - India is not only maintaining but also increasing its oil imports from Russia, with current daily imports at 1.5 million barrels, expected to rise to 1.7 to 1.8 million barrels in September [6]. - The Indian government is taking measures to protect local interests, including suspending certain import tariffs and accelerating trade negotiations with other countries to reduce reliance on the U.S. market [3][5]. Group 3: Geopolitical Implications - India's actions reflect a strategic calculation, recognizing its importance in the U.S. global energy strategy while prioritizing its national interests over U.S. pressures [5][6]. - The Indian government has publicly stated that it will not sacrifice its own interests for U.S. benefits, emphasizing the cost-effectiveness and stable supply of Russian oil [5][8]. Group 4: Market Dynamics - Russian oil constitutes about 40% of India's total crude imports, making India the largest buyer of Russian seaborne oil, which significantly boosts the profitability of Indian refineries [6]. - Analysts suggest that unless a global ban is implemented, Russian oil will remain entrenched in the Indian market, with potential price spikes if India reduces its purchases [6][8].

Core Insights - The article discusses the ongoing financial turmoil characterized by a currency war and the shadow of recession, highlighting the contrasting signals from U.S. fiscal data and capital market reactions [1][12]. Group 1: U.S. Economic Indicators - U.S. Treasury data shows a significant increase in tariff revenue, with nearly $30 billion collected in July alone and an annual projection exceeding $150 billion, suggesting a strong economy [1]. - Despite the tariff revenue, the U.S. dollar index has dropped sharply from 109 to 98 within six months, indicating a nearly 10% decline, which is rare in the past fifty years [1]. Group 2: Monetary Policy Dynamics - Treasury Secretary Yellen's public calls for the Federal Reserve to take decisive action, including a 50 basis point rate cut, represent an unusual direct intervention in central bank policy [1][3]. - Yellen aims to shift the decision-making process from data-driven analysis to market sentiment, creating a perception of impending liquidity shortages [6]. Group 3: Global Financial Implications - Yellen's strategy includes pressuring the Fed while simultaneously advocating for interest rate hikes by the Bank of Japan, aiming to disrupt global capital flows and close the "cheap borrowing" avenue from Japan [8][10]. - A potential rise in Japanese interest rates could lead to a massive repatriation of yen-denominated assets, impacting U.S. dollar assets and increasing selling pressure on U.S. Treasuries [10]. Group 4: Strategic Objectives - The overarching goal of Yellen's actions is to create a "weak dollar and overvalued yuan" scenario, which aligns with previous U.S. policies aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing by lowering financing costs [11]. - This financial strategy is designed to weaken China's export competitiveness by forcing the yuan to appreciate against a declining dollar, thereby impacting China's manufacturing sector [11][12]. Group 5: Geopolitical Context - The article emphasizes that the current monetary policy has transformed from a technical tool into a political weapon, with countries competing for relative advantages rather than absolute economic strength [14]. - The dynamics of capital flows are now seen as a more accurate reflection of a nation's economic health than traditional metrics like tariff revenues [14].

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese representative at the UN, Fu Cong, refuted U.S. accusations regarding the Panama Canal, asserting that China respects Panama's sovereignty and the canal's status as a neutral international waterway [1] Group 1: U.S. Accusations and China's Response - The U.S. has repeatedly made unfounded accusations against China in various UN Security Council discussions, which China firmly opposes [1] - China emphasizes its respect for Panama's sovereignty over the canal and criticizes the U.S. for fabricating lies to justify its control over the Panama Canal [1] Group 2: U.S. Actions in the South China Sea - Fu Cong labeled the U.S. as the biggest disruptor of peace and stability in the South China Sea, citing the deployment of offensive weapons and military reconnaissance activities by the U.S. in the region [1] - The U.S. aims to create chaos in the South China Sea to serve its geopolitical interests, according to Fu Cong [1] Group 3: Global Maritime Security Risks - The U.S. is accused of exacerbating global maritime security risks through its hegemonic behavior, Cold War mentality, and unilateral actions [1] - The U.S. has not joined the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and disregards international law, which undermines global maritime governance [1] - The U.S. is also criticized for threatening the normal operations of key maritime routes like the Panama and Suez Canals, challenging the sovereignty of other nations [1]

Core Viewpoint - The anticipated US-China trade confrontation has shifted to a US-India conflict, with the US imposing a 250% tariff on India while easing pressure on China, highlighting the strategic importance of supply chain control in modern geopolitical dynamics [1][4][6] Group 1: Trade Dynamics - The trade deficit between the US and India stands at $46 billion, which is minor compared to the $295 billion deficit with China [4] - Trump's aggressive tariff policy towards India reveals vulnerabilities in the US defense supply chain, particularly its reliance on Chinese-controlled minerals [4][6] Group 2: Supply Chain Control - The US defense industry is heavily dependent on 80,000 components that rely on Chinese-controlled minerals, making it vulnerable to supply chain disruptions [4][9] - China's dominance in rare earth production (90% of global capacity) serves as a strategic leverage point against the US, demonstrating the effectiveness of non-traditional deterrence methods [4][9] Group 3: Geopolitical Implications - The US-India relationship, previously seen as a strategic alliance, is under strain due to conflicting interests, particularly in energy transactions with Russia [6][9] - The US's dual standards in sanctioning countries, as seen in its treatment of India versus the EU's dealings with Russia, undermine the cohesion of Western sanctions [6][9] Group 4: Future Outlook - The evolving geopolitical landscape suggests that future conflicts will increasingly revolve around critical minerals, chips, and pharmaceuticals, diminishing the effectiveness of traditional tariff strategies [9] - The US faces a dilemma: maintaining a hard stance against China risks crippling military modernization, while pressuring India could push it closer to anti-US alliances [9]

Group 1 - South Korea is actively seeking to extend the 90-day tariff suspension period originally set to expire on July 9, due to the current negotiation progress not being sufficient to meet the deadline [1] - The recent high-level trade talks between South Korea and the U.S. marked the third round of technical negotiations since the agreement to formulate a tariff reduction plan by July 9 was reached in late April [1] - The South Korean official indicated that some countries may reach agreements before July 8, while others may require extensions, and some may continue negotiations under the existing tariff framework [1] Group 2 - The U.S. focused on non-tariff barriers during the recent talks, shifting attention from nearly zero tariffs on U.S. imports to technical trade barriers and regulatory standards [2] - Discussions regarding foreign exchange rate policies and the sharing of defense costs for U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are being conducted through separate channels [2] - The ongoing tariff negotiations reflect a deeper strategic competition between South Korea and the U.S., with South Korea's key industries like automotive and steel urgently needing tariff relief, while the U.S. aims to reshape the Asia-Pacific trade landscape through new trade rules [2]