中新网北京2月26日电 题：美欲动武，何患无辞 记者 贺劭清 徐皇冠 美国有线电视新闻网刊文表示，"这早已是老生常谈的戏码。本届(美国)政府似乎总能为军事干预编造 临时说辞，全然不顾这些说辞是否有事实依据、是否前后一致。" 而新加坡《联合早报》指出，目前特朗普支持率不足四成，他试图在总统任期面临严峻挑战之际，塑造 施政成功的形象。他强调自己倾向于和平，列举一系列他声称曾结束或缓解的全球冲突，并表示"我绝 不会允许世界头号恐怖主义资助国(伊朗)拥有核武器"。 分析人士指出，特朗普的表态，不过是美国为转移国内矛盾、维持中东霸权而寻找的又一个"错误借 口"。 特朗普再一次简单地重复了其一贯说辞，声称为了和平，必须阻止伊朗获得核武器。然而同样是在当 晚，特朗普再提去年6月美国"彻底摧毁"了伊朗的核武器计划——"伊朗关键的铀浓缩设施已被彻底、完 全摧毁"。 既已摧毁，何言威胁？既言和平，何又陈兵？特朗普自相矛盾的表述，引发舆论哗然。 当地时间2月24日晚，美国总统特朗普在国会参众两院联席会议上发表国情咨文讲话，聚焦经济、移民 等议题。这是特朗普在本总统任期内首次发表国情咨文。 中新社记者 沙晗汀 摄 美国众议院少数党领 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs unilaterally under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring his actions illegal [1][6][10]. Group 1: Legal Context - The Supreme Court's decision was based on the interpretation that the IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs or taxes, and the government failed to provide legal precedents for such authority [6]. - The ruling comes after years of legal challenges to Trump's tariff policies, which began in 2018, and raises questions about the timing of the court's decision [8]. Group 2: Economic Impact - Economists estimate that tariffs imposed under the IEEPA exceeded $175 billion, which were intended to penalize foreign goods but ultimately harmed U.S. importers and consumers [13]. - The tariffs led to increased steel prices and manufacturing costs in the U.S., affecting small businesses and consumers rather than protecting domestic industries [13]. Group 3: International Relations - The ruling may influence perceptions among U.S. allies like the EU, Japan, Canada, and Mexico, who suffered from Trump's tariff policies, potentially leading to claims for compensation [16]. - Despite the ruling, the Biden administration has retained many of Trump's tariffs, indicating a continuation of a confrontational trade stance towards China [18]. Group 4: Political Implications - The Supreme Court's decision reflects a division within the U.S. political elite regarding Trump's policies, suggesting concerns about his potential return to power [18]. - The ruling does not eliminate Trump's ability to impose tariffs through other legal frameworks, indicating that the political landscape remains contentious [18].

Core Viewpoint - The visit of U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright to Venezuela has sparked speculation about the future of Venezuelan oil exports to China, with concerns that these exports may cease [1][3][5]. Group 1: U.S. Involvement in Venezuelan Oil - Wright's visit marks the highest-level U.S. official engagement with Venezuela since actions were taken against the country, indicating a strategic interest in Venezuelan oil resources [3]. - The U.S. aims to regain control over Venezuela's energy system through high-level exchanges, potentially limiting China's involvement in the region [5][12]. - The rumors of Venezuelan oil no longer entering the Chinese market may stem from misinterpretations of the situation, exacerbated by the presence of the U.S. official [12][20]. Group 2: China-Venezuela Oil Cooperation - China and Venezuela have established a robust oil cooperation model based on long-term mutual benefits, which is unlikely to be disrupted by a single U.S. visit [14][20]. - The oil-for-loan model has been beneficial for both countries, with Venezuela supplying oil to China to repay loans, while China provides funding and technology for oil extraction [8][10]. - China's involvement in Venezuela's oil sector has led to increased production and efficiency, demonstrating the depth and mutual benefits of their cooperation [8][14]. Group 3: Implications for Energy Security - For Venezuela, exporting oil to China not only aids in loan repayment but also supports domestic economic recovery [10][16]. - China benefits from diversifying its energy imports, reducing reliance on any single region, which enhances national energy security [10][17]. - The U.S. attempts to interfere in global energy cooperation are increasingly met with resistance from other nations, highlighting a shift towards more autonomous energy partnerships [16][20].

Group 1 - The article highlights the turmoil and instability caused by the United States in early 2026, indicating a shift in its foreign and domestic policies that prioritize American interests above all else [1][3][25] - The U.S. has adopted a confrontational stance towards its European allies, viewing them as competitors rather than partners, which marks a significant change in the historically close U.S.-Europe relationship [5][8][14] - The U.S. has intensified its aggressive policies towards Cuba, implementing sanctions that threaten the country's fuel supply and exacerbate its economic struggles, reflecting a broader pattern of unilateralism and disregard for international norms [10][19][27] Group 2 - The tensions between the U.S. and Europe have escalated, with the U.S. openly criticizing Europe for perceived failures in democracy and freedom, leading to protests and a potential rift in their alliance [5][8][14] - Mexico's response to the situation in Cuba illustrates the complexities of regional politics, as it attempts to provide humanitarian aid while balancing its economic ties with the U.S. [21] - The internal conflict within the U.S. government, particularly between President Trump and Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, underscores the challenges of maintaining economic stability amidst political pressures [12][23][27] Group 3 - The article suggests that the root of these conflicts lies in the U.S.'s unilateral and hegemonic approach, which prioritizes its own interests over cooperative international relations [25][27][29] - The ongoing tensions reflect a broader global shift away from U.S. dominance, as more countries begin to resist American hegemony and advocate for multilateralism and respect for sovereignty [29]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the backlash against the United States during the Milan Winter Olympics, particularly directed at the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agency, following the recent killings of two innocent citizens by its officers, which has sparked global outrage and protests against American law enforcement practices [1][3][12]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The article details two tragic incidents involving ICE, where both victims, Renee Good and Alex Preti, were killed by officers under questionable circumstances, raising serious concerns about the agency's use of force [5][7]. - Public opinion polls indicate that a significant portion of the American population views ICE's actions as excessive, with 60% believing in excessive enforcement and 56% deeming the use of force in these incidents as inappropriate [7]. Group 2: International Response - The presence of ICE personnel at the Olympics has been met with widespread criticism, with Italian officials and citizens expressing their disapproval, viewing it as a violation of Italy's sovereignty and safety standards [9][18]. - Protests erupted in Milan, with demonstrators calling for the removal of ICE from the event, reflecting a broader discontent with American policies and actions abroad [16][20]. Group 3: Implications for US-EU Relations - The backlash against the US during the Olympics underscores a growing rift between the US and Europe regarding law enforcement philosophies and respect for national sovereignty [18][20]. - The article suggests that the incidents and subsequent protests may signify a turning point in US-EU relations, as European nations increasingly resist American dominance and assert their own standards for law enforcement [20][22].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint is that China's overseas investments are facing unprecedented risks due to geopolitical tensions and actions by other countries, particularly the United States [4][5] - China's significant investments in Venezuela, Panama, and Australia are highlighted as being jeopardized by foreign political maneuvers, leading to potential financial losses [5][6] - The article emphasizes the need for China to withdraw its overseas investments and redirect funds into domestic markets to ensure economic stability and growth [4][6][8] Group 2 - In Venezuela, China's investments in oil development and infrastructure projects are at risk due to U.S. pressure on the Venezuelan government to cease trade with China [5] - In Panama, Chinese companies have invested over $1.8 billion to upgrade ports, but the Panamanian government has reclaimed operational control, rendering the investment nearly worthless [5] - In Australia, the investment by China's Landbridge Group in Darwin Port is threatened by the Australian government's intention to terminate the lease, posing significant financial risks [5] Group 3 - The article points out that China's holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds amount to $682.6 billion as of November 2025, which could be at risk if U.S.-China relations deteriorate [5] - The domestic market in China is described as having the largest potential for investment, particularly in infrastructure and technology sectors, which are currently underfunded compared to developed countries [6][8] - The call for increased domestic investment is framed as a strategic move to mitigate risks associated with overseas investments while enhancing national economic resilience and competitiveness [8]

Group 1 - Panama's decision to forcibly reclaim the operating rights of Cheung Kong Group in the Panama Canal has shocked the global community, reflecting a shift in U.S. foreign policy towards direct control rather than reliance on intermediaries [1][3] - The U.S. views the Panama Canal as a strategic asset crucial for military logistics, energy supply, and global supply chain stability, indicating that any entity obstructing U.S. strategic goals will face consequences [3][5] - The move by Panama is not just against Cheung Kong Group but challenges an outdated model of utilizing commercial entities to manage strategic assets, signaling a new era where U.S. hegemony will not tolerate such arrangements [3][5] Group 2 - Similar situations are emerging globally, where critical sectors like ports, energy, and communications are being redefined as security assets rather than mere commercial assets, limiting capital flow in these areas [5] - The prevailing belief that commercial actions can influence political decisions is outdated; instead, hegemonic politics now dictate commercial activities, as exemplified by the current U.S. administration's approach [5] - The global capital landscape is undergoing a transformation where entities must choose sides or withdraw, as the gray areas in international business are rapidly disappearing under U.S. hegemony [5]

Core Viewpoint - The United States has openly declared its actions of seizing Venezuelan oil tankers and processing the oil in its refineries, showcasing its hegemonic approach to global resources [1][3]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Motivations - The U.S. has successfully extracted oil from seven seized Venezuelan tankers, with plans to sell 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude on the open market, having already made $500 million from previous sales [1][3]. - The U.S. has intensified sanctions against Venezuela, which has left the country with limited options for oil exports, primarily selling to China and India, while European buyers have ceased purchases due to fear of U.S. sanctions [1][3]. - The seizure of oil is strategically aligned with U.S. energy needs, as the refineries in Houston are specifically designed to process the high-sulfur heavy oil from Venezuela, which was previously difficult to import due to sanctions [3]. Group 2: Economic Implications - The seized oil is expected to fill a supply gap in U.S. refineries, allowing for the production of gasoline and diesel, which can alleviate high domestic oil prices [3]. - The U.S. plans to sell the 50 million barrels of crude oil gradually, aiming to maximize profits by timing sales with fluctuations in international oil prices [3]. - The initial $500 million earned from the sale of seized oil is viewed as a small gain compared to the potential revenue from the planned sales of the remaining crude [3]. Group 3: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The actions taken by the U.S. are criticized as being in violation of international norms, as the seizure of civilian property without military necessity or legal judgment is deemed unjustifiable [5].

Core Viewpoint - The situation in Greenland has become a focal point in international media, with Trump's tariff threats against European countries and Canada's strategic military involvement in Arctic exercises reflecting a complex geopolitical landscape [1][3][5]. Group 1: U.S. Tariff Policy and European Response - Trump's announcement of a 10% tariff on eight European countries, with a potential increase to 25%, has left European nations unable to effectively retaliate, as their economies heavily rely on exports to the U.S. [3] - Germany's previous military presence in Greenland aimed to counter U.S. interests but quickly retreated under tariff pressure, highlighting the economic vulnerabilities of European nations [3][5]. Group 2: Canada's Strategic Calculations - Canada’s participation in Arctic military exercises serves multiple strategic purposes, including enhancing its influence in Arctic affairs and positioning itself for future resource competition [5][7]. - By supporting Denmark, Canada aids in maintaining NATO unity and strengthens its ties with European allies, while subtly opposing U.S. unilateralism [7]. - Canada's long-term strategy focuses on establishing a military presence in Greenland to secure advantages in future Arctic resource development, contrasting with the short-sightedness of U.S. and European approaches [7].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions by the Trump administration regarding Greenland have created significant geopolitical shifts, particularly benefiting China and Russia, while straining US-European relations [1][16]. Group 1: US Actions and Reactions - On January 17, Trump announced a 10% tariff on eight European countries, escalating to 25% unless they agree to purchase Greenland [3]. - Denmark's Prime Minister responded strongly, emphasizing that any military action against NATO members would have severe consequences [5]. - The Greenlandic government reiterated that discussions about its sovereignty must include both Greenland and Denmark, rejecting any unilateral negotiations [6]. Group 2: European Response - The EU is preparing countermeasures, including tariffs on $930 billion worth of US imports, in response to Trump's threats [6]. - Trump's sudden shift in tone at the World Economic Forum, where he announced a cooperative framework regarding Greenland, was seen as an attempt to de-escalate tensions while still pursuing negotiations for the island [8][10]. Group 3: Implications for China and Russia - The discord between the US and Europe has inadvertently provided Russia with more diplomatic space, reducing the pressure it faces from Western powers [19]. - China stands to gain significantly from the US-EU rift, as European nations may seek new partnerships to mitigate reliance on the US market, positioning China as a favorable alternative [20]. - The current geopolitical landscape suggests that as US-European tensions rise, China's strategic importance and opportunities for growth will increase [20].