买岛惹争议，关税当杠杆 这事儿的起点，其实很"特朗普"：把地缘政治当成一笔能谈的交易。 关键在于，特朗普这次不只是"放风"，而是把经济手段直接摆上台面。 英国议会图书馆的一份研究简报写得很具体：他在2026年1月17日宣布，准备从2月1日起对丹麦、英国 以及芬兰、法国、德国、荷兰、挪威、瑞典等国加征额外10%关税，并声称若问题不按他的方向走，6 月1日起可能加到25%，直到"达成购买格陵兰的协议"为止。 这一下就把盟友关系里的那层遮羞布扯下来了：过去大家吵归吵，至少还讲个"程序""协调"；现在是把 关税当棍子，指着盟友就抡。 更值得注意的是，路透社也强调了一个现实：就算真要"买"，也不是总统一句话能办成的——涉及条约 与拨款，必须过国会关口。 可特朗普的打法并不在于立刻买成，而在于制造压力、搅动关系，让对方先乱阵脚。 你看他把"领土议题"和"贸易惩罚"绑在一起，等于是在逼欧洲做选择题：要原则，还是要订单；要面 子，还是要市场。 欧洲喊团结，行动各打算 特朗普在2019年就公开过"想买格陵兰"的想法，到了第二任期，这个话题又被他反复拎出来讲。 格陵兰是丹麦的自治领地，丹麦和格陵兰方面一直把话说得很明白——不卖， ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the widespread opposition from European citizens and scholars regarding U.S. President Trump's threats to acquire Greenland, emphasizing the importance of respecting international law and national sovereignty [1][3][6]. Group 1: Public Sentiment in Brussels - Residents in Brussels express that the notion of the U.S. claiming another territory is unacceptable, warning of severe consequences if such actions are normalized [1]. - There is a strong belief that international law and national borders must be respected, highlighting a lack of mutual respect in current international relations [3]. - Concerns are raised about the potential for NATO member states to become divided, undermining shared values and security partnerships [5]. Group 2: Public Sentiment in Poland - Polish citizens and scholars voice their worries about U.S. statements, asserting that international law and order should be upheld [7]. - There is a sentiment that any attempt to control Greenland would be seen as interference and an attempt to occupy land that does not belong to the U.S. [9]. - The motivations behind U.S. interest in Greenland are questioned, with some suggesting it is driven by the desire for mineral resources rather than genuine geopolitical concerns [11]. Group 3: Academic Perspectives - Academics in Poland argue that U.S. rhetoric regarding Greenland undermines global order and questions the principles established post-World War II [12]. - European leaders, including those from NATO, have publicly supported Denmark and Greenland's right to self-determination, opposing U.S. interference in Danish internal affairs [12]. - The dependency of Europe on U.S. military and technological support is highlighted, suggesting that the Greenland issue may prompt a reevaluation of this reliance [14].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a significant shift in the global role of the United States, emphasizing a more aggressive and imperialistic approach under the Trump administration, as articulated by White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney [3][5][35]. Group 1: U.S. Global Actions - The U.S. is described as engaging in unprecedented military actions in the Western Hemisphere, particularly the intervention in Venezuela, which is seen as a precursor to further aggressive actions [6][35]. - Trump has issued threats against several countries, including Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Iran, indicating a broader strategy of intimidation [7][36]. - The U.S. has expressed a strong interest in Greenland, citing national defense concerns and framing it as a necessary acquisition to counter perceived threats from Russia and China [8][37]. Group 2: Reactions from Allies and Global Implications - The aggressive stance of the U.S. has caused alarm among its allies, with Denmark's Prime Minister warning that any military action against a NATO country would have severe consequences for the alliance [13][42]. - The article notes that the U.S. actions are undermining the post-World War II international order, which was built on principles of sovereignty and mutual respect among nations [14][43]. - A coalition of eight European countries issued a statement asserting Greenland's sovereignty, but the response is characterized as weak and lacking in condemnation of U.S. actions [18][47]. Group 3: Broader Global Context - The article suggests that the greatest threat to NATO is not Russia, but rather the United States itself, as it reasserts its imperial ambitions [22][51]. - The narrative indicates a growing fear among nations that the U.S. may target any country deemed strategically important, leading to a potential escalation of conflicts [21][52]. - The article concludes with a call for nations to be cautious and prepared for a world where U.S. imperialism is a dominant force, suggesting various strategies for response [28][57].