普京选择在瓦尔代俱乐部这个场合抛出这句谚语绝非偶然。这里汇聚了全球顶尖的政治学者、外交官和媒体人，他的每一句话都会被放大解读。用西方文明 源头的智慧来批判今日西方的政策，这种文化上的反击比单纯的政治谴责更具穿透力。古罗马的朱庇特神庙早已倒塌，但"神与牛"的阶级隐喻却在现代国际 关系中找到了新的化身。 值得玩味的是，就在同一场合，普京明确表示恢复对美关系符合俄罗斯利益。批评与合作意愿并存，这种看似矛盾的态度恰恰揭示了国际关系的本质——没 有永恒的敌人，只有永恒的利益。当美国政府在联合国讲台上高谈规则时，其能源政策的双重标准却让所有听众暗自摇头。 索契的会场灯光聚焦，普京缓缓道出那句古罗马谚语时，整个国际舆论场仿佛被投入一块巨石。这句"朱庇特可行之事，耕牛不可为"在今天的政治语境中， 恰如其分地剥开了包裹在道德外衣下的强权逻辑。当美国一面阻止他国购买俄罗斯能源，一面自己却悄悄进口俄浓缩铀时，这句两千年前的警句突然在现实 政治中复活了。 国际政治舞台上从不缺少双重标准，但如此赤裸裸的能源政策仍让人侧目。华盛顿的决策者们似乎忘记了一个基本事实：在全球化市场中，能源流动如同血 液在血管中循环，强行阻断只会让整个机体受损 ...

改写后的文本： 值得注意的是，中国作为全球制造业中心，几乎能生产所有品类的商品，这使得美元作为国际贸易结算 货币的重要性相对下降。而美国经济也显现疲态，从激进加息转向降息周期，表明其通过潮汐效应收割 全球财富的能力正在减弱。有趣的是，当前与美国达成贸易协议的欧盟、日韩等盟友，很可能成为美国 新的收割目标。但这种经济依赖关系也限制了美国的军事冒险空间——毕竟盟友的配合建立在畏惧基础 上，一旦美国采取过激行动，这种微妙平衡就会被打破。更何况，随着中国三款六代机亮相和福建舰实 现电磁弹射等军事突破，美国的战略优势正在缩小。 更让特朗普措手不及的是日本的突然行动。日本央行宣布将出售其持有的交易所交易基金(ETF)和房地 产投资信托(J-REIT)，这一决定将迫使美联储重新考虑其降息节奏。作为美债最大海外持有国，日本一 直是稳定美国金融体系的重要支柱。但如今日本正面临数十年来最严重的通胀压力，急需退出超宽松货 币政策，却遭到美国阻挠——因为日本政策转向可能引发美债市场动荡。随着日本首相更迭，该国显然 已无法继续配合美国政策，选择在美联储降息后立即采取行动。 这些变化使美国陷入更被动的局面。观察人士注意到，中美第三轮与第 ...

罗伊强调，铭记历史不仅仅是回望过去，更是对未来的警示。"了解战争的残酷，会让人们更加珍惜和 平。尤其要让年轻人认识到，如果任由极端主义或霸权思维抬头，人类可能再次陷入灾难。" 责编：李磊、卢思宇 新华社吉隆坡9月9日电（王嘉伟、毛鹏飞）"面对重重困难，中国人民坚持抵抗并最终赢得胜利。这种 精神不仅激励了一代代中国人民，也激励了亚洲其他地区的人民。"马来亚大学国际与战略研究系副教 授罗伊·安东尼·罗杰斯日前在对新华社记者谈起中国人民抗日战争时这样表示。 罗伊指出，从1931年九一八事变爆发到1945年日本宣布无条件投降，中国人民历经了14年艰苦卓绝的抗 战，这远比欧洲战场的持续时间长，这一事实本身就值得被更多人知晓。 "那是中国历史上极其艰难的时刻，但也凸显了中国人民的坚韧和斗争精神。"罗伊说，面对外部入侵， 中国人民坚定抵抗，为世界树立榜样。 罗伊感慨，迄今国际社会对东方战场的研究与传播仍显不足，外界对亚洲人民在战争中的牺牲和贡献了 解有限。"实际上，中国以及其他亚洲国家在战争中付出的代价，深刻改变了地区的历史走向。这些故 事应当被讲述、被铭记。" ...

Group 1: U.S. Trade Policy and Misjudgments - The Trump administration's decision to impose tariffs on Chinese goods was based on the belief that China would quickly capitulate due to its reliance on the U.S. market, with exports to the U.S. accounting for 19% of China's total exports [3][8] - The initial tariff rate was raised from 34% to 84%, affecting over $300 billion in goods, which was framed as a key step to make America great again [3][5] - The U.S. underestimated China's economic resilience and the interconnectedness of global supply chains, leading to significant miscalculations in the trade war [7][10] Group 2: China's Economic Response - China's countermeasures included imposing equivalent tariffs on U.S. goods, which highlighted the flaws in the U.S. strategy and resulted in increased costs for American consumers [5][18] - The Chinese economy demonstrated strong resilience, with a 9.7% year-on-year growth in high-tech manufacturing and a 45.4% increase in new energy vehicle production in Q1 2025 [8][18] - China's strategic responses targeted key U.S. industries, such as agriculture and automotive, effectively pressuring U.S. companies to advocate for negotiations [15][19] Group 3: Global Economic Impact - The trade war led to job losses in the U.S., with approximately 180,000 jobs lost in the first half of 2025, predominantly in manufacturing [21] - The U.S. trade deficit actually widened to $120 billion in the first half of 2025, indicating that tariffs did not achieve their intended effect [24] - Internationally, the U.S. faced backlash, with allies like the EU imposing retaliatory tariffs, and countries like India accelerating trade talks with China [22][24] Group 4: Long-term Strategic Shifts - China's focus on reducing dependency on U.S. markets and enhancing its domestic consumption was evident, with retail sales surpassing 12 trillion yuan in Q1 2025 [18] - The establishment of trade agreements with ASEAN and advancements in technology, such as the production of 7nm chips by Huawei, showcased China's strategic pivot [17][18] - The trade war underscored a shift in global economic dynamics, where the U.S. could no longer dictate terms without considering the resilience and adaptability of other nations [26]

Group 1 - The U.S. Department of Commerce announced a dramatic reversal by restoring exports of EDA software, aircraft engines, and ethane to China, influenced by major companies like Intel and General Electric fearing a loss of billions in revenue [1] - The trade war that began in spring 2025 is seen as a textbook case demonstrating the failure of hegemonic thinking in a multipolar world and the conflict between unilateralism and systemic resilience [1][2] - Initial U.S. tariffs aimed at China were based on a misjudgment of the economic interdependence and the strategic resolve of China, leading to significant operational disruptions in U.S. industries [2][4] Group 2 - The U.S. government's attempt to isolate China through a "tariff alliance" backfired, as allies like the EU and Japan pursued their own interests, undermining U.S. efforts [4] - China's strategic depth in the market was highlighted by the rapid adaptation of its industries, such as the successful launch of domestic chip production and electric vehicle market penetration in Europe [4][5] - The economic backlash in the U.S. was swift, with rising prices for Chinese goods and declining consumer confidence, impacting major companies like Tesla [5][7] Group 3 - The political division within the U.S. exacerbated the situation, with the Federal Reserve resisting pressure to lower interest rates, leading to a perception of economic surrender [7] - The U.S. military faced urgent supply issues due to reliance on Chinese rare earth materials, while China had already prepared for such scenarios [7]

Core Argument - The speech by Stephen Milan, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, equates U.S. military presence and the dollar system to "global public goods," suggesting that other countries should bear a "fair share" of the costs through acceptance of U.S. tariff policies, which reflects a "tariff-funded hegemony" logic [1][2] Group 1: Misinterpretation of Economic Concepts - The characterization of U.S. military deployment as a "global public good" distorts the economic concept, as public goods are defined by non-competitiveness and non-exclusivity, while U.S. military bases serve its own geopolitical interests, indicating a self-serving nature [1] - The U.S. military presence creates security pressure for non-allied countries rather than providing public welfare, exemplified by the tensions arising from NATO's eastward expansion [1] Group 2: Dollar System and Economic Benefits - Although approximately 50% of global trade is settled in dollars, this monetary hegemony primarily benefits the U.S., which gains substantial "seigniorage" revenue from issuing the world currency [2] - The U.S. has created a risk-shifting and "tide harvesting" mechanism through its monetary policies, such as the Federal Reserve's unlimited quantitative easing in 2020, which imposed inflationary pressures on the global economy [2] - The U.S. employs financial sanctions through systems like SWIFT, highlighting the exclusivity of the dollar system, while framing it as a "public good" is a mockery of international economic realities [2] Group 3: Coercive Economic Policies - The proposed solutions under the "tariff-funded hegemony" include coercive measures such as accepting tariffs, increasing purchases from the U.S., and direct payments to the U.S. Treasury, which force other countries to adjust their economic policies for U.S. interests [3] - This approach of economic bullying contradicts the principles of equal negotiation and mutual benefit advocated in modern international relations [3] Group 4: Internal Economic Challenges - The U.S. faces significant fiscal pressures and economic challenges rooted in its own policies, including high military spending and imbalanced fiscal policies, which have led to substantial national debt [3] - Blaming external factors for these internal issues and attempting to impose tariffs as compensation is an ineffective strategy that does not address the underlying problems [3] Group 5: Future of International Relations - The current global landscape necessitates multilateral coordination and cooperation to address complex challenges, rather than unilateral dominance and bullying [4] - Any attempts to maintain hegemony by forcing the world to pay for U.S. privileges are counterproductive, and major powers should focus on promoting peace, development, and genuine global public goods [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that Trump's foreign policy does not fundamentally overturn the traditional U.S. diplomatic approach but rather reflects a more overt expression of the long-standing U.S. hegemonic nature in international relations [1][4][6]. Group 1: U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump - Trump's administration has been characterized by a series of "America First" policies, which include imposing tariffs, withdrawing from international agreements, and exerting pressure on allies, suggesting a return to a more isolationist stance reminiscent of 19th-century imperialism [2][3][8]. - The administration's actions, such as the imposition of 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, reflect a protectionist ideology that has historical precedents in U.S. foreign policy [2][6]. - Trump's rhetoric about making Canada the "51st state" and threats to annex Greenland illustrate a revival of imperialistic tendencies in U.S. diplomacy [3][5]. Group 2: Historical Context and Continuity - The article highlights that many of Trump's foreign policy actions have historical parallels, such as previous administrations' withdrawal from international organizations and the use of economic leverage to achieve political goals [4][6]. - Notable examples include Reagan's and Obama's administrations, which also exhibited similar tendencies to withdraw support from international bodies when U.S. interests were perceived to be compromised [4][6]. - The historical context of U.S. interventions, such as the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Congolese Prime Minister Lumumba, underscores a long-standing pattern of prioritizing resource control and geopolitical interests over international norms [6][8]. Group 3: The Nature of "America First" - The concept of "America First" is portrayed as a consistent theme in U.S. foreign policy, driven by a desire to maintain hegemony and respond to perceived threats to national interests [7][8]. - Analysts suggest that the current administration's more blatant embrace of "America First" reflects a response to declining U.S. power and rising anxieties among the elite and the general populace [8]. - The article posits that the roots of Trump's policies can be traced back to historical U.S. expansionism and a self-serving interpretation of democracy that justifies unilateral actions on the global stage [8].