美国议员将组团访华，特朗普却威胁对中印加税100%，还要求欧盟配合动手。 美国国会议员亚当·史密斯计划组团访华 美国一边想靠对话稳住经贸，一边又拿关税大棒威胁施压，这波操作到底藏着什么心思？欧盟真会跟着美国吃亏？中印又能怎么破局？ 最近美国政界的两个动作，简直像两套完全相反的剧本： 一套是 "求合作"，美国NBC电视台报道称，国会两党议员小组已经公布计划，9月份会对中国进行一场正式的访问。 另一套是 "硬施压"，美国总统特朗普公开喊话，要求欧盟配合美国行动，对中印等购买俄罗斯石油的买家，征收100%的关税！" 这一软一硬的两种反差，其实就是美国内部"打架"，再加上特朗普想在地缘上搞小动作的结果。 再挖本质，特朗普加税不是为了贸易，而是想靠关税 "控场"。 特朗普对中印加税的心思，其实完全不一样。 印度总理莫迪 美国总统特朗普威胁加征关税 先看现象，美国内部为何"自相矛盾"？一边求合作，一边挥大棒。 美国议员要访华，根本是被商界和老派势力推着走的。 就说福特汽车，去年在华卖了几十万台车，要是真加 100% 关税，一辆车售价得从 20 万涨到 40 万，要是中国消费者不买账，福特在华市场份额至少得掉一 半；还有苹 ...

Core Viewpoint - Trump is determined to ignite a new round of global trade wars, specifically targeting countries aligned with BRICS, threatening an additional 10% tariff on them [1][3]. Group 1: Trade War Dynamics - Trump has expressed concerns that BRICS nations are undermining the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, equating its loss to "losing a world war" [3]. - The U.S. has issued unilateral tariffs ranging from 25% to 40% on 14 countries, with Southeast Asia being heavily impacted, including allies like Japan and South Korea [3]. - The BRICS summit revealed that BRICS GDP, calculated by purchasing power parity, reached $77 trillion, surpassing G7's $57 trillion, indicating a significant shift in global economic power [3][5]. Group 2: Responses from BRICS Nations - Vietnam has capitulated to U.S. pressure, agreeing to lower tariffs to avoid losing access to the American market, which constitutes a significant portion of its GDP [5]. - In contrast, Brazilian President Lula publicly rejected U.S. dominance, stating, "We do not want an emperor," highlighting the resistance among BRICS nations [5]. - A joint statement from BRICS countries criticized unilateral tariffs as violations of WTO rules, signaling a united front against U.S. actions [5][6]. Group 3: Economic Implications - The rise of BRICS is not merely numerical but represents a restructuring of global economic systems, controlling over 44% of global oil production and over 90% of rare earth supply chains [5]. - Lula emphasized the need for alternative currencies beyond the dollar in global trade, suggesting a shift towards a multipolar world order that could isolate the U.S. [6].

Core Viewpoint - India has decided to engage in tariff negotiations with the United States, emphasizing that it will not rush into an agreement that harms its own interests, reflecting its growing strength in global competition [1][3]. Group 1: Tariff Negotiations - The primary focus of the tariff negotiations between India and the US is on the agricultural sector, contrasting with the auto industry focus in US-Japan negotiations [1]. - India is resistant to accepting US genetically modified crops, citing potential harm to local farmers' interests, which has led to ongoing disputes without resolution [3]. Group 2: Domestic Pressure and Political Implications - The Indian government faces significant pressure from millions of farmers who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, making any compromise on agricultural issues politically risky for Prime Minister Modi [5]. - Opposition leaders have accused Modi of capitulating to the US, indicating a strong domestic backlash against any perceived weakness in negotiations [5]. Group 3: Government's Strategic Response - Modi's government is attempting to project strength by engaging with other nations, such as attending the BRICS summit in Brazil and visiting several African and Latin American countries to counter US economic dominance [7]. - The government is also implementing targeted tariff measures against agricultural products from key US states, while seeking to enhance trade relations with countries like Russia and the UAE to reduce dependence on the US financial system [7].

Group 1 - The core point of the article revolves around the unexpected diplomatic engagement between France, Germany, and China, which led to a surprising shift in the G7's stance on tariffs against China, leaving the U.S. frustrated [1][4]. - France and Germany's leaders made urgent calls to China, emphasizing the importance of deepening bilateral relations as they approach the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties [3][11]. - The G7's joint statement notably omitted any mention of tariffs, indicating a potential shift in European alignment away from U.S. demands, particularly after the discussions with China [4][9]. Group 2 - The article highlights the dilemma faced by Europe in choosing between aligning with China or the U.S., with Eastern European countries showing interest in China while Western European politicians remain aligned with the U.S. [9][12]. - China is portrayed as a crucial partner for Europe in the context of a multipolar world, with both parties sharing a strategic goal of ending the U.S.-dominated order [12]. - The article suggests that for Europe to foster cooperation with China, it must demonstrate sincerity and commitment, as past actions have strained relations [11].

Group 1: Core Insights - The signing of the US-Ukraine rare earth agreement is portrayed as a significant shift in global supply chains, but the actual rare earth reserves in Ukraine are only 150,000 tons, which is less than 0.3% of China's reserves [1][3] - The agreement faces substantial challenges, including high costs for infrastructure rebuilding, lack of separation technology, and the need for military protection, which could lead to a significant increase in operational costs [4][10] - The volatility in rare earth prices, particularly after China's export controls, has raised concerns about the investment returns from the US-Ukraine agreement [4][5] Group 2: Geopolitical Dynamics - Russia's military and technological responses to the US-Ukraine agreement, including the deployment of advanced missile systems and the establishment of an "Eurasian Rare Earth Alliance," threaten to undermine the agreement's viability [7][10] - China's strategic moves, such as signing agreements with Vietnam and enhancing its rare earth extraction technologies, further challenge the US's position in the rare earth market [7][10] - The European Union's cautious stance towards the US-Ukraine agreement indicates a potential shift in alliances and resource strategies, as EU companies seek to collaborate with China instead [9][10] Group 3: Historical Context and Strategic Implications - The US-Ukraine rare earth strategy mirrors past geopolitical miscalculations, such as the Afghanistan conflict, highlighting a pattern of resource-driven military interventions [9][10] - The agreement has sparked significant backlash within Ukraine, with public opinion largely viewing it as a betrayal of national interests, leading to protests and calls for political accountability [18] - The emergence of new alliances, such as the BRICS Rare Earth Alliance, signals a shift towards a multipolar world order, challenging the US's historical dominance in resource management [18]

Core Viewpoint - The BRICS foreign ministers' meeting in Rio de Janeiro emphasized the importance of multilateralism and cooperation among global South countries in the face of rising unilateralism and geopolitical tensions [1] Group 1: Multilateralism and Cooperation - The meeting highlighted the need for BRICS countries to uphold principles of fairness and justice, positioning themselves as a "main force" in maintaining these values against hegemonic practices [1] - Participants stressed the urgency of adhering to multilateralism and the principles of the United Nations Charter, reinforcing the UN's central role in the international system [1] - The foreign ministers collectively advocated for peace, inclusivity, and dialogue, opposing political polarization narratives and defending free trade rules [1] Group 2: Economic Concerns - There was a shared concern among the foreign ministers regarding the impact of "reciprocal tariffs" on global supply chains and the increasing uncertainty in international relations [1] - The meeting called for the elimination of unilateral coercive measures, such as economic sanctions that violate WTO rules and international law [1]