欧盟反制空间受限，政策姿态可强，但结构性筹码偏弱。一方面，欧盟并非 对美贸易强势方，其对美顺差中约 34% 集中于医药产品，且高度依赖辉瑞等 美国跨国药企在爱尔兰等地的税收与利润转移安排，存在明显"虚高"；另 一方面，在对俄能源依赖收缩后，欧盟对美国能源依赖快速上升，原油依赖 度约 16%、天然气高达 45%，使其在能源安全层面深度嵌入美国供给体系。 基准情形下，格陵兰问题更可能以"美国-格陵兰-丹麦"三方合作方式落地。 形式上主权仍归属丹麦，美国以基建投资、资源与能源开发合作及军事协作 为抓手，实现对格陵兰事务的事实性主导。我们认为，格陵兰事件的意义已 不止于一桩地缘摩擦，更折射出美国以低成本方式重塑规则与筹码结构的趋 势，并正在外溢为全球资产定价的深层变化。 秩序重构正在推动全球资产定价锚的结构性变化。在"新丛林法则"抬头的 环境下，资产的安全感越来越来自可控筹码而非制度背书，"软估值"所依 赖的信用与声誉正在被反复透支，而"硬通货"与稀缺资源的战略属性快速 上升。 资产重估将沿着两条主线展开。一是定价锚的迁移，资金将更倾向于回到贵 金属与稀缺资产之上，不可再生战略资源的资产属性系统性抬升。二是新秩 序下 ...

Group 1 - The Trump administration's global trade strategy exhibits a dual approach, imposing high tariffs on numerous countries while softening its stance towards China, indicating a complex strategy based on the resilience of opponents [1][3][5] - The U.S. recognizes the importance of stable economic relations with China, particularly regarding critical materials like rare earths, leading to a more pragmatic approach of seeking dialogue rather than extreme pressure [3][5] - Trump's strategy involves a selective application of pressure, with high tariffs (up to 50%) on countries perceived as weaker, while seeking cooperation with stronger opponents like China, reflecting a principle where strength dictates the rules of engagement [5][6] Group 2 - Countries that choose to compromise often find themselves in a worse position, while those that adopt a more confrontational approach can gain leverage in negotiations [6][10] - The upcoming EU-China summit is a critical moment for the EU to decide whether to continue compromising or to assert its strength, which will influence its future role in global trade dynamics [6][9] - Recent trade agreements between the U.S. and countries like Japan demonstrate the benefits of compromise, as Japan agreed to significant investments and market openings in exchange for lower tariffs [7][9] Group 3 - Trump's approach has fundamentally altered the global trade landscape, shifting from multilateral negotiations to a more confrontational and power-based framework [9][10] - The ongoing trade tensions require all participants to reassess their positions and strategies in light of the new rules established by the Trump administration [9][10]