2025年了，世界依旧绕不开中美这对"老对手"。但现在这盘局，已经不再是简单的强弱较量，而是两个 方向、两种心态的较真。一个在想怎么往前走，一个却还在回头找责任人。 美国著名评论员扎卡利亚最近的评论，像是泼了盆冷水："美国真的迷路了。"他说的不客气，但却实 在。今天我们就来聊聊，为什么他说美国迷失了，而中国却正在一步一步走得更稳。 其实从这场大会也能看出来，中美之间现在的问题不只是语言风格不同，而是思维方式已经发生了偏 差。美国还在纠结"过去哪里出错"，而中国在思考"未来怎么走得更稳"。这两种节奏，决定了两种完全 不一样的外交走向。 贸易政策的两面镜子：一个设限，一个开放 除了联合国的场面话，具体政策的走向才是真正能看出战略思路的地方。尤其是贸易这一块，更是反映 国家战略心态的"放大镜"。 特朗普二度上任后，延续了他之前的做法，加税、设限，几乎成了标配。不光对中国，对其他发展中国 家也不手软。只要觉得对美国制造业有威胁，就立刻加关税，目的就是要让别人"知难而退"，留住制造 业回美国。这种做法短期来看可能有点效果，但长期呢？别人被你拒之门外，也就不会再把你当首选合 作对象了。 一场大会，两个节奏 前段时间的联合 ...

Group 1 - The core issue is the strained relationship between the United States and India, highlighted by Trump's attempts to reach Modi via phone, which Modi has consistently ignored [1][3]. - Trump's recent imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian goods has escalated tensions, leading to a verbal conflict between the two nations [3]. - Modi's refusal to engage in phone discussions with Trump is attributed to his preference for face-to-face negotiations and concerns over potential misunderstandings [3][6]. Group 2 - Modi's reluctance to accept Trump's calls is also influenced by past experiences, particularly Trump's claims of mediating the India-Pakistan conflict, which Modi has publicly refuted [4][5]. - The diplomatic dynamics are further complicated by the perception that the U.S. has treated India as a strategic ally against China, yet has imposed high tariffs, leading to feelings of humiliation for Modi [7][8]. - Modi's strategic considerations suggest a need for more reliable and trustworthy communication methods when dealing with Trump [8].

Economic Agreement and Investment - The US and South Korea reached an agreement to reduce the previously set 25% tariffs to 15%, which South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol described as a move to "eliminate export uncertainty" [3] - South Korea is committed to investing $350 billion in the US, with $150 billion earmarked for the "Muskegon" shipbuilding project and the remaining $200 billion directed towards semiconductor and new energy battery sectors [5] - The reduction in tariffs may lower export costs, but the agreement includes US demands for opening South Korea's agricultural market, which could complicate future trade negotiations [7] Domestic Reactions and Criticism - The largest opposition party, the People Power Party, criticized the agreement, claiming it causes losses for South Korea amid investment concessions [8] - Experts noted that as a country with a free trade agreement, South Korea should have enjoyed lower tariffs, and this deal effectively weakens its negotiating position [8] - A significant portion of the $350 billion investment consists of loans and guarantees, potentially leading to heavy debt burdens for South Korean companies [8] Strategic Military Cooperation - The shipbuilding cooperation project is not merely commercial but has military strategic implications, with South Korea's Hyundai Heavy Industries planning to build "Arleigh Burke" class destroyers for the US Navy [15] - South Korean shipbuilders can reduce construction time to one-third and costs by 50% compared to US shipyards, which strengthens the military supply chain under US leadership [17] - The first US-South Korea foreign ministers' meeting indicated a shift in the role of US troops in South Korea from "deterring North Korea" to "countering China," marking a significant change in the Northeast Asian security landscape [19] Diplomatic Stance and Regional Tensions - South Korea's Foreign Minister emphasized the need for cooperation with the US and Japan to prevent China from disrupting the international order, while also expressing a desire to maintain good relations with China [10][11] - South Korea's provocative actions regarding Taiwan have escalated, with military maneuvers that have drawn warnings from China [11] - The South Korean ambassador to the Philippines stated intentions to uphold the rule of law in the South China Sea, indicating a more assertive diplomatic posture [13] China's Response and Regional Dynamics - China has responded to South Korea's diplomatic moves by emphasizing the importance of independent cooperation and mutual benefits in their relationship [21] - Stricter scrutiny of South Korean semiconductor equipment imports by China is forcing South Korean companies to reassess their investment risks in China [23] - The strategic competition is reshaping the Northeast Asian economic landscape, with South Korea's reliance on the US potentially leading to a loss of strategic autonomy [23] Conclusion on Economic Strategy - While South Korea celebrates a 10% tariff reduction, it risks losing its technological advantages and market share due to increased dependence on the US [24] - China's RCEP framework is strengthening its regional economic ties, reducing reliance on South Korea, particularly in the new energy sector [24]

Group 1 - The meeting between President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was marked by a polite atmosphere but highlighted significant tensions regarding trade and sovereignty [1][2] - Trump suggested making Canada the "51st state," which Carney strongly rejected, emphasizing that Canada is not for sale [1] - Trump reiterated his stance against removing the 25% tariffs on Canadian goods and claimed a trade deficit with Canada of $200 billion, although the actual figure is approximately $63 billion [1] Group 2 - Canada is the largest export market for 36 U.S. states, with a daily bilateral trade amounting to CAD 3.6 billion (approximately USD 2.7 billion) [1] - Canada supplies 60% of U.S. crude oil imports and 85% of electricity imports, making it a critical supplier of aluminum, steel, and key minerals [1] - Carney emphasized the importance of Canadian businesses to U.S. manufacturing and expressed a commitment to protecting national interests through multilateral channels, reducing reliance on the U.S. [1][2] Group 3 - Carney's visit, while not resulting in substantial breakthroughs, symbolized a significant shift in Canada's diplomatic strategy to defend national interests and reshape its approach to the U.S. [2] - The backdrop of Trump's "America First" policy presents a major challenge for Canada in balancing its dependence on the U.S. with its national sovereignty [2] - The outcome of this diplomatic engagement may influence the future political and economic order in North America [2]