【文/观察者网专栏作者 子思】 2026年，已是21世纪20年代的中间期。21世纪的第三个十年，在拜登政府2022年版《国家安全战略》中 被定义为"决定性的十年"（Decisive Decade），该届美国政府认为，未来国际秩序的基本形态将在这个 十年内决定，胜负在此一举。 英国亦步亦趋，但还算有自知之明，在其军方和外交部文件中使用的概念不敢奢谈什么"决定性"，只说 是"十年动荡"（Decade of Turbulence），认为这是一个高烈度的战略竞争时期，英国需见机行事。 竞争的主要对手，当然是指中国和俄罗斯两国，拜登政府拉开了一个"重建西方同盟"的架势，通过将中 国定义为"唯一既有意图又越来越有能力重塑国际秩序的竞争者"，将俄罗斯定义为"主要的、持续的、 严峻的威胁"，试图构建起一个帝国化的西方同盟，在"决定性的十年"之内取得竞争的胜利。 拜登政府定调之后，英国随即提出了"竞争时代"（Era of Competition）和"系统性竞争"（Systemic Competition）等概念，强调要与中国在"制度模式"层面进行长期竞争；德国紧随其后，该国2023年《国 家安全战略》中使用了"多极混乱"（Mu ...

第62届慕尼黑安全会议13日在德国开幕。这一诞生于20世纪60年代、最初仅数十人参加的军事研讨活 动，如今已成为各国政要讨论全球重大安全议题的重要平台。然而，今年的会前气氛颇为"不安"。跨大 西洋关系正经历冷战结束以来最剧烈的"离心运动"。 此次美国方面由美国国务卿鲁比奥率代表团参会，除了他以外，还有50多名美国国会议员和加州州长纽 森。去年慕安会期间，美国副总统万斯在发言中严厉批评了欧洲的价值观等，引发了欧洲方面的强烈不 满。此次大家都非常关注鲁比奥、纽森等人对于当前跨大西洋关系的最新表态。此外，加拿大总理卡尼 也将现场参会并且会发表演讲。上个月底，卡尼在达沃斯论坛期间发表演讲称，"基于规则的国际秩 序"已名存实亡。目前，加拿大和美国之间的关系摩擦不断。 按照慕安会公布的消息，此次会议期间，丹麦首相弗雷泽里克森将现场参会，美国国务卿鲁比奥也将发 表演讲。慕安会出台的年度报告指出，目前欧美之间的冲突已从具体政策分歧，演变为对同盟关系核心 准则的认知撕裂。美国在乌克兰问题上摇摆不定，与欧洲立场相差很大；美国近期不断威胁夺取格陵兰 岛，以及对欧洲滥施关税。这种种行为让欧洲人意识到，必须建立一个强大的欧洲来应对美国 ...

Core Viewpoint - The 62nd Munich Security Conference highlighted concerns regarding the current U.S. government's actions that are perceived as undermining transatlantic partnerships and democratic principles, leading to skepticism about the rules-based international order [1] Group 1 - U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized the U.S. government for actions that include the kidnapping of foreign leaders and threats to allies, which she argues are hypocritical and damaging to global democratic institutions [1] - Ocasio-Cortez emphasized that the Western world's inaction towards these aggressive behaviors represents a vulnerability in the global democratic system, urging against a return to isolationism [1]

据报道，卡尼在达沃斯的演讲措辞强硬，直言"二战后建立的基于规则的国际秩序正在消亡"，世界已进 入大国零和博弈时代。虽未直接点名美国，但他明确提到"霸权国家"正在将关税、金融基础设施和供应 链武器化，对中等强国构成威胁。卡尼表示： "几十年来，像加拿大这样的国家在所谓的基于规则的国际秩序下繁荣发展，我们知道这个 故事部分是虚假的，霸权国家会在方便时豁免自己，贸易规则被不对称地执行，但这笔交易 不再奏效了。" 他呼吁中等强国放弃"顺从能换取安全"的幻想，转而采取联合行动。"中等强国必须采取一致行动，因 为如果我们不在谈判桌上，我们就会成为别人的盘中餐，"卡尼警告称，"如果仅与霸权国家进行双边谈 判，则是从弱势地位进行谈判。这不是主权，这是在接受从属地位的同时表演主权。" 针对特朗普对格陵兰岛的主权声索及相关关税威胁，卡尼表达了强硬立场："在北极主权问题上，我们 坚定地与格陵兰和丹麦站在一起。加拿大强烈反对因格陵兰问题征收关税。" 特朗普团队集体反击 报道称，特朗普在达沃斯的演讲中直接点名卡尼，称其对美国不够感激。"加拿大靠美国生存，"特朗普 说，"记住这一点，Mark，下次你发表声明的时候。"周四，特朗普在Tru ...

据新华社报道，加拿大总理卡尼（Mark Carney）20日在瑞士达沃斯举办的世界经济论坛年会上说，加拿大强烈反对美国为得到格陵兰岛加征关税。 卡尼表示，近来，一些大国把关税当作施压杠杆，把金融基础设施作为胁迫工具。他指出，包括世界贸易组织、联合国在内，集体解决问题的制度架构正面临 威胁。 媒体报道称，卡尼当日发表了一场措辞强硬的演讲并警示： 中等国家必须觉醒。 他直言不讳地指出，二战后建立的"基于规则的国际秩序正在消亡"，世界已进入 大国零和博弈 的时代。卡尼警告称，在这种环境下，"'霸权国家'可以为所欲 为，弱者只能承受苦难"。 卡尼在演讲中呼吁全球中等强国放弃"'顺从'能换取安全"的幻想，转而采取联合行动抵制"霸权国家"的胁迫。 他强调，面对将贸易、金融和供应链武器化的霸权行为，中等国家必须建立新的联盟架构， "因为如果我们不在谈判桌上，我们就会成为别人的盘中餐（if we're not at the table, we're on the menu）。" 这一表态发生的背景十分敏感。近期，美国总统特朗普威胁对盟友加征关税，并再次荒谬地提出"购买格陵兰岛"，甚至赤裸裸地发布了一张美国国旗覆盖格陵 兰和加 ...

据新华社报道，加拿大总理卡尼（Mark Carney）20日在瑞士达沃斯举办的世界经济论坛年会上说，加拿大 强烈反对美国为得到格陵兰岛加征关税。卡尼表示，近来，一些大国把关税当作施压杠杆，把金融基础设 施作为胁迫工具。他指出，包括世界贸易组织、联合国在内，集体解决问题的制度架构正面临威胁。 媒体报道称，卡尼当日发表了一场措辞强硬的演讲并警示：中等国家必须觉醒。 他直言不讳地指出，二战后建立的"基于规则的国际秩序正在消亡"，世界已进入大国零和博弈的时代。卡 尼警告称，在这种环境下，"'霸权国家'可以为所欲为，弱者只能承受苦难"。 卡尼在演讲中呼吁全球中等强国放弃"'顺从'能换取安全"的幻想，转而采取联合行动抵制"霸权国家"的胁 迫。他强调，面对将贸易、金融和供应链武器化的霸权行为，中等国家必须建立新的联盟架构，"因为如 果我们不在谈判桌上，我们就会成为别人的盘中餐（if we're not at the table, we're on the menu）。" 这一表态发生的背景十分敏感。近期，美国总统特朗普威胁对盟友加征关税，并再次荒谬地提出"购买格 陵兰岛"，甚至赤裸裸地发布了一张美国国旗覆盖格陵兰和加拿大的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the U.S. possibly acquiring Greenland, highlighting the contradiction it poses to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that Western nations have supported in the context of Ukraine. This situation raises concerns about the future of international norms and alliances, particularly for Ukraine, which relies on Western support in its conflict with Russia [3][5][11]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Implications - The U.S. President has threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and other EU countries if they do not agree to the sale of Greenland, indicating a shift from diplomatic negotiations to coercive tactics [3][5]. - The notion of trading territory, as suggested by the U.S. administration, undermines the established principle of inviolable sovereignty, which has been a cornerstone of Western political rhetoric [5][9]. Group 2: European Response and Concerns - European leaders, including the Prime Ministers of the UK and France, have expressed alarm over the U.S. approach, fearing it could erode the moral foundation of Western alliances and lead to a prioritization of economic interests over shared values [11][13]. - The potential sale of Greenland is seen as a threat not only to Denmark's sovereignty but also to the security of smaller EU nations, raising fears of a domino effect in the region [7][11]. Group 3: Impact on Ukraine - The situation places Ukraine in a precarious position, as its fate appears to be intertwined with the geopolitical maneuvering surrounding Greenland, highlighting the fragility of its support from Western allies [11][13]. - The article suggests that if the EU allows the sale of Greenland, it could signal to Russia that territorial integrity can be negotiated, undermining Ukraine's position in its conflict with Russia [9][11].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of President Trump's announcement to impose tariffs on several European countries and his intention to purchase Greenland, highlighting a shift in U.S. strategic logic from alliance maintenance to resource acquisition and territorial control [1][3][19]. Group 1: U.S. Tariff and Greenland Acquisition - President Trump announced a 10% tariff on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and six other European countries, with a potential increase to 25% if a deal to purchase Greenland is not reached by June 1 [1]. - The move has been characterized as "open extortion" by European media, indicating a troubling precedent for international relations and territorial sovereignty [1][3]. Group 2: Strategic Importance of Greenland - Greenland is strategically located between the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, with melting ice due to climate change making new shipping routes viable, potentially reducing travel time from Shanghai to New York by over 40% [4][6]. - The island is rich in rare earth minerals and other critical resources essential for modern technology and green energy, making it a valuable asset for any nation [6]. Group 3: Military and Geopolitical Implications - The U.S. military presence in Greenland, particularly at Thule Air Base, plays a crucial role in monitoring potential threats from Russia, enhancing U.S. strategic capabilities in the Arctic [6][10]. - Control over Greenland would allow the U.S. to strengthen its military positioning against Russia, effectively encircling Russian naval activities in the Barents Sea [6]. Group 4: European Response and NATO Dynamics - European nations have shown limited military response to U.S. actions, with symbolic troop deployments and internal disagreements on how to address the situation [11][12]. - The potential for U.S. military action against Greenland raises questions about NATO's collective defense obligations and the alliance's future credibility [11][12]. Group 5: Russia's Position and Strategic Calculations - Russia has positioned itself as a potential counterbalance to U.S. ambitions in Greenland, suggesting that only it could effectively prevent U.S. annexation, albeit under specific conditions related to the Ukraine conflict [3][15]. - The Kremlin's rhetoric aims to exploit divisions within the West, questioning the consistency of Western principles regarding self-determination and territorial integrity [14][19]. Group 6: Greenland's Autonomy and Local Sentiment - Greenland's legal status as a self-governing territory complicates U.S. acquisition efforts, as any transfer of sovereignty must be approved by its people through a referendum [8][10]. - The sentiment among Greenland's population, which has expressed a desire to remain independent, poses a significant barrier to U.S. plans for acquisition [18].

Core Viewpoint - The European Parliament supports multilateralism and a rules-based international order, condemning U.S. President Trump's remarks regarding Greenland as a violation of international law and Denmark's sovereignty [1] Group 1: Support for Multilateralism - The European Parliament firmly supports multilateralism and a rules-based international order [1] - Any attempts to undermine Denmark and Greenland's sovereignty and territorial integrity are deemed violations of international law and the UN Charter [1] Group 2: Condemnation of U.S. Remarks - The European Parliament explicitly condemns the statements made by the Trump administration regarding Greenland, labeling them as a blatant challenge to international law and the principles of the UN Charter [1] - Such remarks are considered "unacceptable" and threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of NATO allies [1] Group 3: Call for Action - The European Parliament urges the European Commission and the European Council to develop specific and actionable support measures for Greenland and Denmark, in accordance with EU principles and laws, international law, and NATO Charter [1] Group 4: Context of Greenland - Greenland, located northeast of North America, is the world's largest island and an autonomous territory of Denmark, with significant self-governance [1] - The Danish government manages defense and foreign affairs, while the U.S. currently operates a military base in Greenland [1] - President Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland since taking office in 2025, even suggesting the possibility of using force, which has faced strong opposition from Denmark and other European nations [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that President Trump's order for military action against Venezuela openly challenges the "rules-based international order" and solidifies the image of the U.S. as a "global rogue" [1] Group 1: Military Action and International Law - Trump's military action against Venezuela disregards international law, which prohibits the use of force to violate the territorial integrity of sovereign nations and to intervene in other countries' governance [1] - The article compares Trump's actions to a "drunken man in a bar wielding the biggest gun," highlighting the aggressive nature of his approach [1] Group 2: Constitutional and Legislative Concerns - Trump's military actions were taken without congressional authorization, raising concerns about violations of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act [1] - Several U.S. lawmakers have criticized Trump's actions as "extrajudicial killings," indicating a significant political backlash against his approach [1] Group 3: Impact on Multilateral Mechanisms - The current international landscape shows that multilateral mechanisms, including the United Nations, are being ignored or undermined by Trump [1] - The only entity capable of restraining Trump is the U.S. Congress, which is perceived to be failing in its duties due to partisan politics [1] Group 4: Political Consequences - Senator Cory Booker has pointed out that Trump's repeated overreach and legal violations are being overlooked by Republicans out of fear and submission, which could accelerate the collapse of U.S. constitutional governance [1]