15%中国收入变保护费 果然特朗普是交易的天才，既然不敢对中国收税，而且收不到，那不如对美国企业收税。真可谓是一箭三雕，不仅美国企业卖了商品，美国还获得了税 收，只能说，特朗普赢麻了。 美国霸权要变现了？15%中国收入变保护费，专家：下一步军工 只有你想不到的，没有特朗普不敢做的。就在所有人都以为，特朗普只敢拿关税战，美国的霸权来变现，通过各种极限施压，在金融市场赚钱的时候，没 想到，当下特朗普更是来了大手笔，那就是既然堵不住那就疏吧。 而且更是直接表示，英伟达和AMD可以对中国出口相关的芯片，这也就是说，美国的审批权放开了，但是却只开了一个口子。而特朗普的要求竟然不是 不许卖，而是自己必须分成，更是要拿到对华销售收入的15%，特朗普这是要将美国的安全变现了吗？下一步，特朗普将把霸权也变现吗？ 近日，就在所有人都盯着美国和中国达成的共识，将再次延长中美关税豁免期限的时候，没想到一个更大的新闻让美国此次冲上热搜。那就是之前美国一 直通过所谓的安全借口，对中国进行科技封锁和打压。 但是没想到，到特朗普手里，却逐渐开始放开了。当然并没有完全放开，只是相比较以前开放的大门已经从收缩转变为放开，这影响是巨大的。 这在一 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the U.S. imposing tariffs on India, highlighting India's resistance and the potential backlash against U.S. hegemony in global trade [1][4][19]. Group 1: U.S.-India Relations - The U.S. initially sought to align India as a strategic partner in the Asia-Pacific region but faced challenges due to India's non-compliance on issues like energy and military procurement, particularly regarding Russian oil and arms [3][10]. - The U.S. tariffs are seen as a means to enforce compliance, but India is responding assertively, indicating it will not remain silent or compliant [5][11]. Group 2: India's Strategic Position - India is positioned as a significant market with a population of 1.4 billion, making it a key player in global supply chains and a leader among developing nations [7][10]. - India's recent actions, such as advocating for the Global South at the G20 and increasing orders from Russia, demonstrate its intent to assert independence from U.S. influence [10][12]. Group 3: Potential Consequences for the U.S. - The imposition of tariffs on India may backfire, as India holds critical positions in certain supply chains that could complicate U.S. interests [12]. - If India successfully resists U.S. pressure, it could inspire other allies like Japan, the EU, and Australia to reconsider their alignment with U.S. policies, potentially leading to a broader backlash against U.S. trade practices [13][18]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The article suggests that India's resistance could act as a catalyst for structural changes in global trade dynamics, challenging U.S. dominance [15][19]. - The U.S. may struggle to maintain its multi-front sanctions strategy, especially as allies begin to question their roles in supporting U.S. initiatives [14][20].

Group 1 - Indian Prime Minister Modi's upcoming visit to China in late August marks his first trip to the country in seven years, highlighting its significance [1] - Following the announcement of Modi's visit, US President Trump expressed the possibility of imposing new tariffs on China, particularly targeting countries purchasing Russian oil [3] - Trump's threats against China are seen as part of a broader strategy to counteract the growing cooperation between China and Russia, indicating a desire to maintain US dominance [5][7] Group 2 - The US has reduced tariffs on India from an initial 250% to 25%, reflecting a significant concession amid ongoing trade tensions [7] - Trump's aggressive stance towards both China and India is perceived as an attempt to exert pressure, but it may backfire, as indicated by India's response to the situation [5][6] - The dynamics of US-India trade are likely to be affected by the imposition of higher tariffs, which could complicate future negotiations [5]

Group 1 - The U.S. has recently targeted India with tariffs, marking a shift in its trade strategy after previously pressuring the EU and Japan, which complied with a 15% tariff [1][2][4] - The trade deficit with India stands at $46 billion, with a total bilateral trade volume of approximately $129 billion, prompting U.S. frustration over India's market openness and its ties with Russia [4][6] - India is resisting U.S. pressure, citing its diverse trade options and the need to protect its agricultural sector, which employs 50% of its population [6][7] Group 2 - The U.S. is in a contradictory position, wanting to use tariffs to open India's market while fearing that aggressive tactics may push India closer to China, undermining its "Indo-Pacific strategy" [7][9] - Both countries are likely to engage in retaliatory measures, leading to a trade conflict that may harm both sides, as neither is willing to compromise on their core interests [9] - The outcome of this trade dispute could reflect poorly on U.S. strategic objectives, questioning the effectiveness of its approach in maintaining global dominance [9]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the resurgence of trade tensions under Trump's administration, highlighting the challenges faced by the U.S. in maintaining its global leadership as countries like Brazil and Japan respond assertively to new tariffs [1][3][4]. Group 1: U.S. Tariff Policies - Trump's new tariffs have reignited global trade conflicts, with significant backlash from countries such as Brazil and Japan [1][3]. - The "America First" policy has led to strained relations with traditional allies, as countries reassess their economic ties with the U.S. [3][4]. - The imposition of tariffs results in increased costs for imported goods, ultimately affecting consumers and businesses [3]. Group 2: Brazil's Response - Brazil has emerged as a key player, surpassing the U.S. to become China's largest soybean supplier, reflecting its discontent with U.S. hegemony [3][4]. - In response to U.S. tariffs, Brazil enacted the "Commercial Reciprocity Law," imposing a 50% tariff on U.S. goods and seeking new trade partnerships [12][17]. - Brazil's government highlighted a $410 billion trade surplus with the U.S. over the past 15 years, countering Trump's claims of trade deficits [10][12]. Group 3: Japan's Reaction - Japan's automotive industry faces severe impacts from a 25% tariff on imports, prompting strong criticism from Prime Minister Kishida [7][14]. - Japan's government has adopted a firmer stance against U.S. policies, emphasizing the need to protect national interests [14][17]. - The ongoing tariff disputes have led Japan to reconsider its economic relationship with the U.S., aligning more closely with other global partners [4][19]. Group 4: Global Implications - The article suggests that the U.S. is losing its dominant position as more countries challenge unilateral trade practices [4][17]. - The responses from Brazil and Japan signal a broader trend of nations seeking equitable trade relationships, moving away from dependency on the U.S. [4][19]. - The future of U.S. global leadership is uncertain, hinging on its ability to navigate increasing international resistance to its trade policies [19].

Group 1 - The core message of Trump's statement is a display of anxiety regarding the decline of U.S. global hegemony, as he threatens a 10% tariff on countries supporting BRICS policies [1][3] - The rise of BRICS nations is a significant factor contributing to U.S. anxiety, as their achievements are reshaping global governance towards a more equitable direction, challenging U.S. unilateralism [3][5] - Trump's threats are ineffective as they reflect a misunderstanding of global dynamics; the attempt to coerce other nations into severing ties with BRICS is unrealistic and counterproductive [5] Group 2 - The ambiguous definition of "anti-American policies" in Trump's statement primarily targets the challenge to U.S. hegemony posed by the rise of BRICS and countries like China and Russia [3][5] - The actions taken by BRICS nations, such as promoting local currency settlements, represent a trend that the U.S. cannot easily impede, indicating a shift towards a multipolar world [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the escalating tensions between the U.S. and South Korea regarding military funding and troop presence, highlighting Trump's demands for increased payments and the potential implications for regional security and alliances [1][3][5][7]. Group 1: Military Funding and Demands - Trump demands South Korea to increase its annual payment for U.S. military presence to $10 billion, threatening to withdraw 4,500 troops if not met [1][3]. - In 2024, South Korea agreed to pay $1.13 billion as "protection fees," but Trump rejected this agreement, insisting on higher payments [3]. - Additional tariffs of 25% on South Korean imports are set to take effect, impacting key sectors like semiconductors and automobiles unless market access is granted [3][5]. Group 2: Strategic Military Movements - The potential withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea may lead to their relocation to Guam, as part of a broader strategy to counter China in the Taiwan Strait [3][5]. - Concerns arise over Guam's military readiness, with simulations indicating a survival rate of less than 40% in the event of conflict [3]. Group 3: Regional Alliances and Reactions - The U.S. actions have strained its long-standing alliances in the Asia-Pacific region, with South Korean lawmakers discussing nuclear armament and public protests against U.S. military presence [5][7]. - Japan and the Philippines are reportedly accelerating their military capabilities, indicating a shift towards self-reliance in defense [5]. - North Korea may exploit the situation to advance its nuclear ambitions, raising fears of an arms race in the region [5][7]. Group 4: Implications for U.S. Hegemony - The article suggests that Trump's tactics reflect a desperate attempt to maintain U.S. dominance, which may ultimately backfire and weaken alliances [7]. - South Korea faces a dilemma of either continuing to pay high "protection fees" or risking U.S. military withdrawal, highlighting the precarious nature of U.S. influence in the region [7].

Group 1 - The BRICS summit emphasized global South solidarity and cooperation, addressing issues like unilateralism and protectionism, reflecting on the current international order's inequities [3][6] - The summit's declaration indirectly criticized the United States, particularly condemning unilateral measures not authorized by the UN, which aligns with the U.S.'s common sanction practices [3][5] - Trump's immediate response to the summit included threats of a 10% tariff on countries aligning with BRICS' "anti-American policies," indicating a clear divide in international alliances [5][8] Group 2 - The BRICS nations are evolving from a diplomatic platform to a more functional multilateral mechanism, with increasing cooperation in areas like investment and currency settlement [13][16] - The recent summit reached a consensus on de-dollarization, with plans to establish an investment platform independent of the dollar system, which could significantly impact global financial dynamics [16][27] - Countries like Indonesia are seeking to balance relations with both BRICS and the U.S., highlighting a trend where nations prioritize practical benefits over rigid alliances [15][21] Group 3 - China's and Russia's responses to U.S. threats emphasized that BRICS is not an anti-U.S. coalition but rather a platform for cooperation, countering the narrative of a divided world [11][12] - The BRICS nations are exploring innovative financial systems, including independent payment and clearing systems, to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, with China already signing significant currency swap agreements [27][29] - The call for de-dollarization is gaining momentum, with leaders like Brazil's Lula advocating for trade relationships that do not rely on the dollar, indicating a shift towards a more multipolar world [27][31]

Group 1 - The dominance of the US dollar is beginning to weaken, with an increase in the internationalization of the Chinese yuan, particularly in energy and commodity transactions [5][6][7] - The rise of the CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System) serves as a substantial alternative to SWIFT, allowing for faster and cheaper transactions while bypassing US financial monitoring [5][6] Group 2 - The US's technological blockade against China has inadvertently stimulated domestic innovation, leading to breakthroughs in various sectors such as 5G, operating systems, and aerospace [8][10][12] - The pressure from the US has acted as an accelerator for China's self-reliance in technology, transforming challenges into opportunities for advancement [9][12][13] Group 3 - The military advantage of the US is no longer a unilateral dominance, as China's advancements in missile technology and naval capabilities challenge US military presence globally [14][15] - The inability of the US to maintain its global military commitments is evident, with allies questioning US security assurances [14][15] Group 4 - The narrative control that the US has historically maintained is eroding, as global perceptions shift towards recognizing China's economic growth and infrastructure development [16][17][18] - The rise of alternative voices in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Central Asia indicates a diversification of perspectives away from US-centric narratives [17][18] Group 5 - The decline of US hegemony is attributed to its own internal decay rather than direct confrontation, with China leveraging its strengths to navigate this asymmetrical competition [20][21][22] - China's approach focuses on self-improvement and resilience, positioning itself as a counterbalance to the outdated global order without seeking to dominate [23][24]

Group 1: U.S. Global Military Presence - The U.S. has approximately 750 military facilities in over 80 countries, with a permanent troop presence of around 170,000, making it the most extensive military network globally [4] - The establishment of military bases has been a strategy to consolidate U.S. global hegemony, particularly in regions of strategic interest such as Europe and the Middle East [6][9] - Recent strategic adjustments include the withdrawal of troops from non-core interest areas, such as Niger and Chad, reflecting the challenges and costs associated with maintaining a vast military presence [9][10] Group 2: Economic and Financial Dynamics - The U.S. dollar has been a crucial pillar of American hegemony, serving as the world's primary reserve currency, allowing the U.S. to exert significant economic influence [10][12] - The U.S. federal debt reached $33 trillion by the end of 2023 and is projected to rise to $35 trillion in 2024, exceeding 122% of GDP, indicating a severe fiscal challenge [12][14] - Many countries are actively seeking to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar, exploring alternative currencies for trade and investment, which could undermine the dollar's dominance [14] Group 3: Domestic Challenges - The U.S. faces significant internal issues, including political polarization and social unrest, which have been exacerbated by economic disparities and a lack of trust in government [17][18][20] - The widening wealth gap is evident, with the top 1% controlling 38.6% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% holds only 2.4% [20] - The manufacturing sector is experiencing a decline, with its GDP share dropping from approximately 12% in 2008 to below 10% in 2024, indicating a trend of industrial hollowing out [20]