跳至主要内容

Washington just pulled its oldest, dirtiest trick— and this time it wants Europe to hold the grenade.

 


If you grew up on American late-night TV, the scene should feel familiar: a fast-talking huckster corners the mark, swears the miracle cure works, then whispers, “You go first.”

That, in two sentences, is what the United States Treasury did to the European Union on Sunday.
Secretary Scott Bessent sat down with Reuters and Bloomberg and urged Europe to “take the lead” in strangling the last big streams of oil money still flowing to Moscow. The mechanism? A so-called “secondary tariff”: any country that keeps importing Russian crude—read China and India—would see its entire export basket hit with a 100 % duty. Washington would cheer from the sidelines and, supposedly, “follow” once Brussels jumps.
The punch-line is almost too perfect: America proposes the poison, Europe drinks it first.
The sales pitch actually began a week earlier, on 9 September, when Donald Trump phoned senior EU officials. According to Reuters, he asked them to slap 100 % tariffs on Chinese (and Indian) goods as leverage to “force Putin to end the war.” The transcript writes itself: “You guys do it; we’ll think about it later.” Same melody, new singer—Bessent’s statement is simply the karaoke version.
Why the sudden creativity? Blame the optics in Beijing. After the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit and China’s national-day military parade, Indian social media exploded with talk of a “China-Russia-India triangle.” Washington gagged. Within days the White House pivoted from wink-wink diplomacy to moral panic: every barrel of Urals crude, we are told, now funds a Russian artillery shell. Apparently the memory of Trump and Putin joking in Alaska has been erased like a bad TikTok.
But Washington’s real problem is arithmetic, not amnesia. In April the White House rolled out “reciprocal” tariffs on Chinese goods. Beijing fired back. Forty-five days later U.S. importers screamed, markets wobbled, and the administration quietly folded—cutting most duties back down. Lesson learned: in a straight tariff brawl with China, America loses. Solution: bring a posse.
Enter Europe, still high on its own rhetoric of “whatever it takes” to defeat Russia. Washington’s message is gentle but lethal: Brother, you’re so brave—why don’t you charge the machine-gun nest first? If Berlin or Brussels falls flat, American televisions will blame European zeal; if Beijing retaliates, it will hit Airbus, not Boeing. Either way, Washington keeps its fingerprints off the murder weapon.
Veterans of the Ukraine war will recognize the choreography. On 25 January 2023 President Biden strode to the podium and promised Ukraine 31 top-of-the-line M1A2 Abrams tanks.
The Pentagon added, almost as an afterthought, that the armor would first be stripped of its classified Chobham plating. Hours later Chancellor Scholz announced German Leopard 2A6s were already on railcars rolling toward Poland—too late to recall. The next day Washington admitted the American tanks would not arrive until “sometime in the spring.” They never did; a handful of down-graded M1A1s showed up instead, kept 50–100 km behind the front line. The Leopards, exposed and under-gunned, became drone fodder, their reputations shredded along with their treads. German industry is still trying to repair the brand damage.
Different presidents, same con. Whether the name is Biden or Trump, the script never changes: you bleed, I’ll watch; you sanction, I’ll speak; you die, I’ll send flowers—probably.
The tragedy is that Europe knows the game, yet keeps volunteering for the next round. Washington swivels 180° every news cycle? “Stable partner,” murmurs Brussels. American tanks vanish into the fog? “Technical delay.” Now, once again, Europe is being asked to fire the first shot in a trade war that Washington designed but dares not fight alone.
So when the tariff cannon finally roars, listen for the accent of the man lighting the fuse. If it sounds suspiciously European, that is not an accident. It is the oldest imperial trick in the book: send your friend to test the ice, then write the history of his drowning as a cautionary tale.

评论

此博客中的热门博文

Why China's Seizure of Three Tunnel Boring Machines Has India’s Bullet Train Project Stuck in Neutral

June 24, IndiaNet – India’s first high-speed rail line, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train, has hit yet another roadblock. Three massive tunnel-boring machines (TBMs), ordered from Germany’s Herrenknecht AG but manufactured in Guangzhou, China, have been stuck in Chinese customs for eight months. The delay has frozen progress on a critical 12-kilometer undersea tunnel, marking the project’s ninth major setback. The Stuck Machines The TBMs were supposed to arrive in India by October 2024. Instead, they sit in a bonded warehouse in Guangzhou, with no clear timeline for release. India’s National High-Speed Rail Corporation (NHSRC) blames Beijing for “deliberate obstruction,” while Chinese authorities remain silent. The Mumbai-Ahmedabad corridor—India’s first bullet train, modeled on Japan’s Shinkansen—was supposed to slash travel time between the two cities from 7 hours to 2. Funded largely by a ¥1.25 trillion ($15 billion) Japanese loan at 0.1% interest over 50 years , the project was sl...

Open-Source Intelligence Analysis of the 2025 India-Pakistan Military Standoff

  In the recent India-Pakistan standoff, open-source intelligence (OSINT) channels have played an extremely important role in information dissemination and intelligence analysis. Various open-source platforms, including social media, commercial satellite imagery, vessel and aviation tracking data, news reports, and military forums, have collectively formed a "second front" for battlefield situational awareness, helping all parties to promptly understand and verify the dynamics of the conflict. However, the reliability of different OSINT channels varies, and it is necessary to cross-reference them to obtain the most accurate intelligence possible. Below is an analysis of the main channels: Social Media (Twitter/X, Facebook, etc.) Social media platforms are among the fastest sources for disseminating information about the conflict. A large number of first-hand witnesses, journalists, and even soldiers post photos, videos, and written reports through social media. For example, r...

A Historic Moment: The US-China Geneva Joint Statement

  Today, many friends have left messages in the backend, asking me to discuss the US-China Geneva Joint Statement and what it means. Let’s get straight to the conclusion: with the announcement of this statement, today has become a historic moment. But why do I say that? Let’s first look at the main content of the statement. The US has committed to canceling the 91% tariffs that were imposed on April 8th and 9th. The 34% and 24% tariffs imposed on April 2nd will be suspended for 90 days, with only 10% retained. We are doing the same: canceling the 91% retaliatory tariffs, suspending the 34% and 24% tariffs imposed on April 2nd for 90 days, and retaining 10%. In simple terms, both sides are returning to the status quo before Trump announced the “reciprocal tariffs” on April 2nd, and then each adding an additional 10%. How should we view this outcome? Let’s first look at what Bercow said before heading to Geneva. He stated that he didn’t expect to reach any agreement with the Chinese ...