全球争夺格陵兰

你好。

Hi.

我是索拉纳·莱恩。

I'm Solana Pine.

我是《纽约时报》视频部门的总监。

I'm the director of video at The New York Times.

多年来，我的团队制作了大量视频，带您更贴近重大新闻时刻，这些视频由《纽约时报》记者制作，凭借专业能力帮助您理解正在发生的事。

For years, my team has made videos that bring you closer to big news moments, videos by Times journalists that have the expertise to help you understand what's going on.

现在，我们将这些视频带到《纽约时报》应用的“观看”标签页中。

Now we're bringing those videos to you in the watch tab in The New York Times app.

这是一个专属的视频频道，您可以完全信任其中的内容。

It's a dedicated video feed where you know you can trust what you're seeing.

那里所有的视频都免费向所有人开放。

All the videos there are free for anyone to watch.

您无需成为订阅用户。

You don't have to be a subscriber.

下载《纽约时报》应用程序即可开始观看。

Download The New York Times app to start watching.

来自《纽约时报》，我是娜塔莉·凯特雷夫。

From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Ketraev.

这是《每日新闻》。

This is The Daily.

数周以来，特朗普总统通过声称不惜一切代价夺取格陵兰岛，不断加剧全球紧张局势。

For weeks, president Trump has been ratcheting up tensions across the world by claiming he would stop at nothing in his quest to seize Greenland from Denmark.

然后在周三，特朗普似乎退让了，宣布至少在现阶段同意了一条退出路径。

Then on Wednesday, Trump appeared to back down, announcing that he'd agreed, at least for now, to an off ramp.

今天，我的同事马克·兰德勒将带您了解特朗普格陵兰计划的惊险起伏，以及为何这场风波可能标志着新世界秩序的开端。

Today, my colleague Mark Landler, on the dizzying ups and downs of Trump's Greenland gambit and why this whole saga may mark the beginning of a new world order.

今天是1月22日，星期四。

It's Thursday, January 22.

马克，这真是惊心动魄的一周。

Mark, what a week this has been.

欢迎收听《每日新闻》。

Welcome to The Daily.

谢谢。

Thanks.

很高兴能回来。

It's great to be back.

在过去的几天里，我们看到特朗普想要并意图接管格陵兰岛的意愿引发了巨大的压力。

So in the last couple of days, we've seen this incredible pressure build over Trump's desire and stated intention to take over Greenland.

就在今天，星期三，我们得知特朗普和北约达成了某种协议框架。

And then just today, Wednesday, we got this announcement that Trump and NATO had reached some kind of framework for a deal.

但我们对这个协议了解不多，先为我们梳理一下。

And we don't know all that much about it, but just orient us.

我们到底知道些什么？

What do we know?

嗯，正如你所说，我们了解得并不多。

Well, you know, as you said, we don't know a great deal.

似乎有一项协议的雏形，根据该协议，美国可能会被授予对格陵兰岛上某些小片土地的某种形式的所有权或主权，主要是美国军事基地。

There appears to be the outlines of an agreement under which The US would perhaps be granted some form of ownership or sovereignty, if you will, over small pockets of land in Greenland, probably US military bases.

这似乎能让特朗普宣称他一直想要的东西——即美国对格陵兰的部分所有权，同时让丹麦政府维持现实情况，即这片土地仍是丹麦领土。

It appears that that would be something that would allow President Trump to claim what he has wanted all along, which is some American ownership of Greenland, while for the Danish government maintaining the reality of this situation, which is that this is Danish territory.

因此，似乎北约秘书长马克·吕特正在努力设计一种方案，既能安抚特朗普，又能维护丹麦对格陵兰的主权主张，而此前美丹两国在这一问题上的冲突已趋于不可调和。

So it appears to be something that Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, is trying to craft that will somehow mollify Trump while sort of preserving Denmark's claim over over Greenland, which was shaping up to be an unbreakable conflict between The United States and Denmark.

最终会如何发展？

How it all shakes out?

还非常不清楚。

Very unclear.

对于我们这些过去长期报道特朗普的人来说，我们知道这些戏剧性事件通常有多幕，第一幕所呈现的情况，往往在第二幕和第三幕中发生根本性变化。

For those of us that have covered Trump in the past, we know that these dramas tend to have multiple acts, and what you find out in act one often changes radically into act two and act three.

但表面上看，欧洲人似乎成功地将特朗普从这一问题上那相当危险的悬崖边拉了回来。

But it does appear on the face of it that the Europeans have managed to edge Trump away from, you know, a rather dangerous cliff edge on this whole issue.

总之，至少就我们目前所知，他们达成了某种协议，但远未达到美国全面拥有格陵兰的程度。

And the upshot is, at least as far as we know for now, that they've reached some kind of agreement that falls way short of The United States owning all of Greenland.

但确实达成了某种妥协。

But there is some kind of compromise that's been made.

所以今天真是让人头晕目眩。

So it's been a head spinning day.

这一周都让人头晕目眩。

It's been a head spinning week.

我们来谈谈我们是怎么走到这一步的。

Let's talk about how we got to this point.

为什么特朗普如此想要格林兰？

Why does Trump want Greenland so badly?

你能解释一下吗？

Can you explain that?

我想我可以从两个层面来回答这个问题。

Well, I guess I would answer that on two levels.

我认为唐纳德·特朗普想要格林兰，某种程度上源于他作为房地产开发商的背景。

I think Donald Trump wants Greenland in a sense coming from his background as a real estate developer.

他希望为美国获取领土。

He wants to acquire territory for The United States.

格陵兰在面积上将超过路易斯安那购地、阿拉斯加以及其他美国历史上一些主要的领土扩张，成为美国迄今为止最大的新领土收购。

Greenland would be a larger new acquisition for The United States in square miles than the Louisiana Purchase, than Alaska, than some of the other major expansions of The United States.

所以，从非常直观的层面来看。

So that's on a very visceral level.

这仅仅是他在总统任期内扩大国家版图的举动。

It's simply about expanding the footprint of the country while he is president.

没错。

Right.

但这里还有一个更战略性的论点，那就是格陵兰位于北极这一全球竞争激烈的区域。

But there's also a more strategic argument here, and that argument is that Greenland sits in a very contested part of the world in the Arctic.

它地处富含稀土矿物等宝贵矿产资源的地区。

It sits atop these very valuable minerals known as rare earth minerals.

因此，其他国家，比如俄罗斯和中国，将越来越对格陵兰产生兴趣。

For that reason, other countries are going to become increasingly interested in Greenland, the Russians, the Chinese.

简而言之，特朗普的观点是我们需要格陵兰。

Trump's argument in short is we need Greenland.

我们需要格陵兰作为保护美国国家安全的前沿阵地。

We need Greenland as a frontline place to protect US national security.

我们需要格陵兰，因为我们要开发其丰富的矿产资源，而除非我们真正拥有它，否则无法实现这些目标。

We need Greenland because we want to exploit its mineral riches, and we can't do any of that unless we actually own it.

仅仅拥有一个军事基地是不够的，而美国确实已经拥有一个。

It's not just enough to have a military base there, which The United States does have.

我们必须成为拥有者，才能充分获得格陵兰提供的安全保障和经济开发优势。

We need to be the owners in order to get the full advantage of the protection of Greenland to be able to exploit it economically.

马克，他这么说对吗？拥有格陵兰真的能确保所有这些新利益吗？

And is he right, Mark, that owning Greenland would somehow secure all of these new benefits?

关键是，美国在现有美国与丹麦的安排下，已经可以几乎获得所有这些好处。

Well, the point is The US could already obtain virtually all of these benefits under the existing arrangement between The United States and Denmark.

1951年的一项条约赋予美国在该岛上大幅扩展军事设施的灵活性。

A 1951 treaty gives The US a great deal of flexibility to expand its military facilities on the island.

所以特朗普总统的观点是，如果你只是通过许可协议来使用某物，你就永远不会真正去保卫它，而他正是这样描述我们目前在格陵兰的安排的。

So president Trump's argument is you're never gonna defend something if it's a license agreement, which is the way he characterizes our current arrangement in Greenland.

但事实是，在现有安排下，我们完全可以大大加强在格陵兰的军事存在。

But the truth is we could build up our military footprint on Greenland a great deal under the existing arrangement.

而且，丹麦人也会欢迎这种做法。

And furthermore, the Danes would welcome that.

丹麦政府一再表示，我们愿意与美国进行讨论。

The Danish government has said over and over again, we are willing to have discussions with The United States.

我们欢迎更深入的参与，不仅限于军事，还包括商业领域。

We would welcome greater involvement, not just military, but commercial.

因此，我认为总统在提出这一论点时并不完全正确。

So I think the president is not quite right when he makes this argument.

对。

Right.

这就是为什么当特朗普最初提出要拥有格陵兰时，人们根本没把他当真。

Which is why when Trump originally started talking about owning Greenland, people really didn't take him seriously.

对吧？

Right?

看起来美国已经拥有对格陵兰的这种访问权了，所以吞并它要么是个笑话，要么是完全空洞的威胁。

It seemed like The US already had this access to Greenland, and taking it over was either a joke or a completely empty threat.

但显然，情况发生了变化。

But then, obviously, that changed.

是的。

Yeah.

我觉得没错。

I think that's right.

我认为有一件具体事件改变了很多人对局势的判断，那就是美国军方在委内瑞拉的军事行动，当时总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗被美军推翻并带到美国，面临毒品走私的刑事指控。

And I think that there was one specific event that happened that changed the calculations of a lot of people, and that was the military operation in Venezuela in which the president, Nicolas Maduro, was removed by American military forces and taken to The United States to face criminal drug trafficking charges.

我认为，这一事件比其他任何单一因素都更让许多人警觉起来，说：等等，不对劲。

I think that event more than any other single thing caused a lot of people to sit up and say, hey, wait a minute.

当他谈论格陵兰时，他其实是认真的。

When he's talking about Greenland, he's actually serious.

为了美国确保北极地区，保护和防御北约及其利益，格陵兰显然应该成为美国的一部分。

For The United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously, Greenland should be part of The United States.

你看到总统的几位顾问，特别是斯蒂芬·米勒，上电视时强调，这种展示武力的行为，世界应该预期美国在其他地方也会如此表现。

You had a number of the president's advisers, memorably Stephen Miller, go on TV and kind of make the point this flexing of muscle is something that the world should expect to see from The United States elsewhere.

没有人会为了格陵兰的未来与美国发生军事对抗。

Nobody's gonna fight The United States militarily over the future of Greenland.

我们出于国家安全需要格陵兰。

We need Greenland for national security.

实际上，这种‘强权即公理’的粗暴哲学，开始由总统本人广泛传播。

And in effect, this brute philosophy of might makes right started being widely broadcast by the president himself.

所有权对你来说非常重要。

Ownership is very important to you.

为什么所有权在这里如此重要？

Why is ownership important here?

因为我认为这是心理上取得成功所必需的。

Because it's what I feel is psychologically needed for success.

而且

And

因此，欧洲人突然变得非常担忧。

so Europeans are suddenly extremely worried.

我们进行了坦诚且富有建设性的讨论。

We had what I will describe as a frank but also constructive discussion.

丹麦派遣官员与格陵兰官员一同前往白宫，与特朗普总统的助手会面，试图达成某种妥协。

The Danes send officials along with Greenland officials to meet with president Trump's aides at the White House to try to work out some sort of a compromise.

总统已经明确表达了他观点，而我们的立场则不同。

The president has made his view clear, and we have a different position.

他们空手而归。

They leave empty handed.

丹麦现在正与法国、德国、挪威和瑞典等盟友一起，加强其在这一战略要地的军事存在。

Denmark's now boosting its military presence on this strategically located island along with allies from France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden.

丹麦的北约盟友法国和英国承诺向格陵兰派遣少量部队，以示团结。

You have NATO allies of Denmark, France, and The United Kingdom pledging to send small numbers of troops to Greenland as a show of solidarity.

事情正在急剧升级。

Things are really ratcheting up.

事情正在急剧升级，突然间这变成了一场真正的全面危机。

Things are really ratcheting up, and suddenly this is a a genuine full blown crisis.

就在那时，特朗普总统直接重新介入，对欧洲表示：

And at that point, president Trump reenters the fray very directly and says to Europe

特朗普总统的新威胁以及围绕格陵兰的对峙。

A new threat from president Trump and the standoff over Greenland.

总统表示，他将对丹麦征收10%的关税。

The president says he'll impose a 10% tariff on Denmark

如果你不愿意退让，我就重新开启我和你们每个国家以及欧盟达成的贸易协议，并在现有关税基础上加征新关税。

and If you're not willing to back off, I will reopen the trade deals that I made with each of your countries and with the European Union and slap new tariffs on top of the existing tariffs.

因此，原本仅是外交和地缘政治危机，现在也演变成了一场全面的经济危机。

And so what had been a diplomatic and geopolitical crisis now is also a full blown economic crisis.

这就带我们来到了本周，在瑞士阿尔卑斯山的达沃斯，世界各国领导人和商业领袖齐聚一堂，参加他们的年度会议。

And that brings us to this week, to Davos, where world leaders and business leaders had assembled for their annual meeting in the Swiss Alps.

他们每年都会这么做。

This is something they do every year.

但今年，这次会议面临着巨大的压力。

But now, this year, there are these enormous stakes bearing down on this meeting.

特朗普在周三早上抵达，发表了一篇大家翘首以待的演讲，人们普遍认为，美国与欧洲、加拿大以及我们一些最亲密盟友的关系前景正悬于一线。

And Trump arrives Wednesday morning to deliver a speech that everyone was waiting to hear with the real sense that the future of America's relationship with Europe, with Canada, with some of our closest allies was hanging in the balance here.

我看了这场演讲。

I watched this speech.

我知道你也看了。

I know you did too.

你觉得这场演讲最让你印象深刻的是什么？

So what struck you the most about it?

如果在场的人们希望得到安慰，我认为特朗普总统很快让他们失望了，而且失望得相当严重。

Well, if the hope of the people waiting in that room was to be reassured, I think that president Trump let them down quickly and let them down pretty hard.

你想让我谈几句格陵兰的事吗？

Would you like me to say a few words of Greenland?

我本来打算在演讲中省略这部分，但我认为如果不讲，我会受到非常负面的评价。

I was gonna leave it out of the speech, but I thought I think I would have been reviewed very negatively.

这是特朗普最张扬、最具有威胁性的时刻，他以一种我们迄今为止见过的最纯粹的形式，传达了他数月来一直在阐述的信息：这是一个强者生存、弱者必须学会适应的世界。

This was Trump at his most swaggering, his most menacing, really delivering in perhaps the purest form we've seen a message that he's been articulating for months that this is a world in which the strong survive and the weak have to learn how to deal with it.

事实上，没有任何国家或国家集团能够比美国更有能力掌控格陵兰。

And the fact is no nation or a group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than The United States.

他说他想要格陵兰。

He said he wants Greenland.

他希望美国拥有并控制格陵兰。

He wants The United States to take ownership and control of Greenland.

如果我们不使用压倒性的力量和武力，恐怕我们什么都得不到，而一旦动用，我们几乎是不可阻挡的。

We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable.

但我不会那么做。

But I won't do that.

但值得注意的是，他也排除了采取军事行动的可能性。

But notably, he also took military action off the table.

只有美国才能保护这片广袤的土地、这块巨大的冰原，开发并改善它。

It's The United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it, and improve it.

所以他来了，并且在某种程度上说：看吧。

So he came in, and at one level, said, look.

我不会动用武力去占领北大西洋这片巨大的冰原。

I'm not gonna use force to take over this huge hunk of ice in the North Atlantic.

因此，我正寻求立即展开谈判，再次讨论美国收购格陵兰的问题。

And that's the reason I'm seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by The United States.

但我希望立即展开谈判，也希望你们欧洲人配合。

But I wanna have immediate negotiations, and I want you Europeans to be compliant.

他说。

He said

他们有选择。

They have a choice.

你们可以说好，我们会非常感激。

You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative.

如果我们能达成协议，我会非常感激。

If we can do a deal, I'll be most appreciative.

或者你们可以说不。

Or you can say no.

或者你们可以说不，而我们会记住。

Or you can say no, and we will remember.

因此，这是一条充满特朗普标志性的蔑视与愤懑的、令人极度不安且具有威胁性的信息。

So it was a deeply unsettling and menacing message delivered with Trump's trademark mix of contempt and vitriol.

那么，这篇演讲在达沃斯是如何被接受的？

And so how is this speech received in Davos?

所以你会发现，在经历了长时间试图讨好特朗普、安抚特朗普、劝说特朗普之后，欧洲领导人现在开始展现出更多敢于对抗他的意愿。

So what you see is that after a very long period of trying to flatter Trump, of trying to mollify Trump, of trying to cajole Trump, European leaders are now showing a bit more of a willingness to stand up to him.

他们开始说：绝不。

They're beginning to say, no way.

我们不会容忍这种行为。

We won't tolerate this.

我们不会接受。

We won't accept it.

这在外国领导人，尤其是欧洲领导人应对特朗普总统的方式演变过程中，是一个非常引人注目的时刻。

And that's a really, really fascinating moment in the evolution of how foreign leaders, particularly European leaders, dealt with President Trump.

北约盟友，正如一位前美国外交官所说，已经经历了与特朗普总统相处的五个阶段。

NATO allies, in the words of one former American diplomat, had gone through five stages of grief with President Trump.

这从他重返白宫后立即开始的否认阶段开始。

It began with denial right after he got back into the White House.

随后迅速转为愤怒，或许是在特朗普与乌克兰总统弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基那场糟糕的会晤之后；接着进入讨价还价阶段，继续陷入抑郁，最终终于接近了接受的状态。

It transitioned very quickly to anger, perhaps after that terrible meeting that Trump had with Vladimir Zelenskyy of Ukraine, shifted to bargaining, continued into depression, and has finally arrived at something approaching acceptance.

你能解释一下吗，马克？是什么促使了这种转变？

And can you explain, Mark, why this is the thing that has prompted that change?

为什么就是现在，欧洲领导人开始背离你所说的那种安抚特朗普的策略，转而对他采取更强硬的态度？

Why is this the moment that leaders in Europe are turning away from, as you said, the strategy of kind of, you know, placating Trump to now going much harder at him?

我认为这与这些领导人此前在与特朗普总统就关税进行谈判时的感受有关，他们曾认为可以达成协议，可以与他做生意，可以将损害控制在一定范围内。

I think what it has to do with is the fact that these leaders who felt during the period of time that they were negotiating with president Trump over tariffs, that there was a deal to be done, that they could do business with him, that they could get some of the damage limited.

我认为在这种情况下，他们认为这更加根本、更加关乎存亡，他们觉得必须站出来表态。

I think in this case, they view this as far more fundamental, far more existential, and it's one in which they felt they had to take a stand.

他们必须划出一条红线。

They had to draw a line.

这不容谈判。

This is not open to negotiation.

这是一个必须为你的价值观挺身而出的时刻。

This is a moment where you have to stand up for your values.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

克里斯汀，你有没有买过什么东西，然后心想：哇，

Christine, have you ever bought something and thought, wow.

这个产品真的让我的生活变得更好了。

This product actually made my life better.

完全没错。

Totally.

而且我通常通过Wirecutter找到这些产品。

And usually, I find those products through Wirecutter.

是的。

Yep.

但你在这里工作。

But you work here.

对。

Yeah.

没错。

That's true.

我确实如此。

I do.

我们都这样。

We both do.

我们是《纽约时报》Wirecutter节目的主持人。

We're the hosts of the Wirecutter show from the New York Times.

我们的工作是研究、测试和筛选产品，然后推荐我们最喜欢的产品。

It's our job to research, test, and vet products, and then recommend our favorites.

比如，基拉，我想你已经试过大约40张床垫了吧？

For instance, Kyra, I think you've slept on what, like, 40 mattresses?

嗯。

Mhmm.

是的。

Yep.

克里斯汀，你测试过从搅拌机到亚麻床单的各种产品。

And Christine, you've tested everything from blenders to linen sheets.

哦，我超爱亚麻床单。

Oh, I love linen sheets.

我们将把这些专业知识带到《Wirecutter秀》中。

And we're bringing all of this expertise to The Wirecutter Show.

每周，我们都会采访我们140名记者团队中的一位，聊聊每个品类中最出色的产品推荐。

Each week, we'll talk to someone from our team of a 140 journalists about the very best product picks in every category.

还有更多技巧和

Plus tips, tricks, and

超越产品的窍门，因为我们不仅仅想推荐优秀的产品。

hacks that go beyond the products because we don't just wanna recommend great gear.

我们更想解决你们的日常问题。

We wanna solve your everyday problems.

相信我，我们有这个能力做到这一点。

And trust me, we have the expertise to do just that.

收听由我，凯拉·布莱克韦尔主持的《The Wirecutter》节目，

Listen to the Wirecutter show hosted by me, Kyra Blackwell,

以及我，克里斯汀·斯特尔克利塞特，可在您收听播客的任何平台收听。

and me, Christine Steerclissette, available wherever you get your podcasts.

好的，马克。

Okay, Mark.

你刚才说，美国的盟友基本上认为，格陵兰问题远不止格陵兰本身那么简单。

So you just said that America's allies essentially came to the view that this Greenland issue was much bigger than just Greenland itself.

他们认为这个问题正如你所描述的那样，关乎生死存亡。

They came to see this as something you described as existential.

如果你能解释一下，为什么他们将这些威胁视为如此根本性的风险？

Just describe if you can why they view these threats as such a fundamental risk.

因为欧洲真正将国际法和基于规则的秩序视为其生存、经济繁荣，以及西方自由民主的核心。

Because Europe really views the system of international law of a rules based order as central to its existence, to its economic prosperity, and frankly, to Western liberal democracy.

一旦这种基于规则的秩序突然破裂、彻底崩塌，这一切都将面临风险。

All of that is put at risk by having a sudden rupture, a shattering of this rules based order.

因此，你在达沃斯看到的是，一系列领导人走上讲台，警示这种破裂的代价，并开始讨论他们需要采取什么措施来应对。

And so what you saw in Davos was a series of leaders stepping up on the dais to sort of warn about the costs of this and to begin to talk about what they need to do to respond to it.

于是，法国总统马克龙上台发言，表示我们更希望有伙伴，而不是霸凌者。

So you had president Macron of France get up and talk about how we prefer partners to bullies.

最非同寻常的是，加拿大总理马克·卡尼发表了我认为将在未来多年被铭记的极为重要的演讲。

And most extraordinarily, you had Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada deliver, I think, what's going to be remembered for years as an extremely significant speech.

似乎每一天，我们都被提醒着，我们生活在一个大国竞争的时代。

It seems that every day, we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry.

他在演讲中阐述了国际秩序丧失所面临的重大风险。

In which he described what's at stake in the loss of the international order.

数十年来，加拿大等国家在我们所说的基于规则的国际秩序下繁荣发展。

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we call the rules based international order.

他回顾了历史，描述了这一秩序是如何建立的，以及它主要惠及了谁——当然是美国。

And he went back into history and described how this order was set up, who it benefited, of course, principally The United States.

尤其是美国的霸权，帮助提供了公共产品、开放的海上通道和稳定的金融体系。

And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system.

这一制度中也存在不诚实和虚伪的成分。

How there were elements of dishonesty and hypocrisy to that system.

我们深知，基于规则的国际秩序的故事并不完全真实，最强者在方便时总会为自己开脱。

We knew the story of the international rules based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient.

然而，所有人都默许了这一点，因为不仅美国从中受益，较小和中等强国也同样受益——既得益于由此产生的经济联系，也得益于它为弱国提供的安全保障。

That Which, nevertheless, everybody went along with because not only did The United States benefit, but the smaller and middle powers did too, both through the economic ties that were generated by it and, crucially, the protection it afforded to the weaker states.

本质上，马克·卡尼所说的是

And essentially, what Mark Carney said is

让我直说吧。

Let me be direct.

我们正处在一场断裂之中，而非过渡。

We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

那个体系已经结束了。

That system is over.

大国与中等强国之间的那份协议已不复存在。

That bargain no longer exists between the great powers and the middle powers.

当一体化成为你被支配的根源时，你就不能再活在相互受益的谎言中了。

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

我们现在生活在一个公然掠夺的世界里。

We now live in an openly predatory world.

强者拥有他们的力量。

The powerful have their power.

我们也有自己的东西。

We have something too.

停止自欺欺人的能力。

The capacity to stop pretending.

对于加拿大这样的国家，以及其他欧洲国家来说，要在这样一个世界中生存，它们将需要更加务实，在某种程度上减少以价值观为导向，愿意与包括中国在内的更多行为体达成协议。

And for countries like Canada, like other European countries to survive in that world, they're going to need to be much more pragmatic, to some extent less values driven, willing to cut deals with a greater number of actors, including China.

这就是加拿大的道路。

That is Canada's path.

我们公开而自信地选择了这条道路，任何愿意与我们同行的国家都拥有这条宽广的道路。

We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

非常感谢。

Thank you very much.

而且

And

因此，唐纳德·特朗普以他一贯直觉强烈的方式指出了威胁，而马克·卡尼则以深刻而清晰的方式作出了回应。

so if Donald Trump, in his characteristically visceral way, was laying out the threat, Mark Carney was supplying in a deeply articulate way the response.

卡尼的演讲尤其引人注目。

And the speech by Carney was especially striking.

值得注意的是，他的演讲获得了全场起立鼓掌。

Worth noting, it got a standing ovation.

但为了理解这一时刻，卡尼本质上是在说，所谓基于规则的世界秩序这一幻想已经终结。

But for the purposes of understanding this moment, essentially, what Carney is saying is that this fiction of a rules based world order is now over.

面具已经摘下。

The mask is off.

我们一直依赖的霸权国家——美国，如今实际上正在转向反对我们。

The hegemon that we've all been relying on, The United States, is now essentially turning against us.

因此，我的疑问是，在对抗这一霸权时，北约其他成员国究竟还有什么牌可打？

And so my question mark is, in standing up to that hegemon, what cards does the rest of NATO actually have to play?

这当然是问题的核心。

Well, this is, of course, the heart of the matter.

在某种程度上，你必须承认，他们手里的牌并不多。

And on one level, you have to say they don't have a lot of cards.

如果美国对格陵兰发动全面军事进攻，德国、法国、英国和丹麦几乎不可能与美国开战。

Were The United States to launch an all out military assault on Greenland, there is a 0% chance that Germany, France, The United Kingdom, and Denmark are gonna go to war with The United States.

当然，别忘了特朗普总统似乎排除了这种可能性。

Now remember, of course, president Trump appeared to rule that out.

但关于其他威胁，尤其是乌克兰和俄罗斯的威胁，你已经开始看到这类回应的雏形。

But, you know, with regard to other threats, notably the threat in Ukraine, the threat from Russia, you're already beginning to see the outlines of that kind of response.

德国已加入法国和英国，组建了他们所谓的‘意愿联盟’，提议向乌克兰或乌克兰周边派遣数万名士兵，以在与俄罗斯达成停火协议后协助保障该国安全。

Germany has joined France and The UK in building what they call a coalition of the willing, a proposal to send tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine or around Ukraine to help secure the country in the event of a ceasefire with Russia.

你可能会看到波罗的海国家之间或地中海国家之间形成一系列较小的联盟。

You could see a series of smaller alliances between Baltic countries or between Mediterranean countries.

因此，这些安排并不具备北约联盟那种整体性的感觉，但各国之间正在形成一些零散的安排。

So it doesn't have the overarching feel of the NATO alliance, but there are these more piecemeal arrangements that countries can make with each other.

我认为这就是卡尼所谈论的内容。

And I think this is what Carney is talking about.

这更混乱了。

It's messier.

这也更危险了。

It's riskier.

这更昂贵。

It's more expensive.

但在这样一个掠夺性的世界里，这可能是这些中等强国所能期望的最好结果。

But in this predatory world, it may be the best that these middle powers can hope for.

基本上，你的意思是，这些北约国家的一种策略是让自己在安全问题上，特别是应对俄罗斯的威胁时，最终大大减少对美国的依赖。

Basically, you're saying that one strategy would be for these NATO countries to get themselves in a position to eventually rely a lot less on The United States when it comes to security, especially with regard to the threat from Russia.

显然，这将是一个长期战略。

Obviously, that would be a long term strategy.

这需要时间来实现。

That would take time to play out.

几代人的时间。

Generations.

欧洲自二战结束以来一直处在美国的安全保护伞下，因此要建立一个不依赖或少依赖美国的独立安全力量，可能需要整整几十年。

Europe, because it was under this American security umbrella since the end of World War two, would have to take literally decades to build up an independent security force that had no reliance or little reliance on The United States.

而这将涉及各国政府在公共资源配置上做出极其艰难的决策。

And that would involve extremely difficult decisions by governments about how to spend public resources.

记住，这些国家习惯于慷慨的社会福利计划，而这些福利计划由政府资助，历史上它们在国防和军事上的支出远少于美国。

Remember, these are countries that are used to generous social welfare programs, welfare programs that are funded by governments that historically did not have to spend as much on defense and the military as The United States did.

所以，这是其中一个层面。

So that's on one level.

在经济层面，确实，这些国家至少在理论上拥有一些筹码。

On the economic level, it is true that these countries, at least in theory, do have some leverage.

例如，在贸易方面，欧盟可以对其他国家，包括美国，实施他们所谓的反胁迫措施。

On the trade front, for example, the European Union can impose what they call anti coercion measures against other countries, including The United States.

这通常被通俗地称为‘火箭筒’。

This is something that's colloquially known as the bazooka.

那么，这个‘火箭筒’具体指的是什么？

And what is the bazooka exactly?

嗯，所谓‘火箭筒’，本质上是一系列极为严厉的措施，欧洲可以对那些被他们认为实施了不公平贸易行为的国家采取这些措施。

Well, so a bazooka is basically a series of very draconian measures that the Europeans can impose on another country that they think has hit them with unfair trade practices.

当然，这对许多在欧洲开展业务的美国公司和投资者来说将是极大的痛苦。

And of course, that would be very painful for the many American companies and investors that do business in Europe.

所以这是一种杠杆作用。

So that is a form of leverage.

但欧洲联盟内部似乎远未就使用此类措施达成一致。

But there seems to be well short of unanimity within the European Union about using measures like that.

这触及了欧洲长期以来的问题，即在面对像美国这样的主要对手时，难以就这些立场达成足够统一以真正有效。

And that goes to what is the perennial problem with Europe, which is achieving enough unity around any of these positions to make them truly effective when you're facing, you know, a major adversary like The United States.

我推测，难以就使用你所说的这种经济‘火箭筒’达成一致，部分原因在于其中存在风险。

And I presume also part of the reason it's hard to get on the same page about using what you called this economic bazooka is that there's a risk to it.

这风险非常大。

There's a huge risk to it.

目前，特朗普表示他不会实施他曾威胁过的额外新关税，但他经常在关税问题上反复无常。

At this moment, Trump is saying he's not gonna impose the additional new tariffs he had threatened, but he goes back and forth on tariffs all the time.

所以，如果你对美国实施‘火箭筒’，有什么能阻止特朗普总统施加100%或150%的关税？这可能会对德国汽车制造商或法国奢侈品出口商造成灾难性后果。

So if you were to impose the bazooka on The United States, what's to stop President Trump from imposing 100% tariffs or 150 tariffs, which could have really calamitous consequences for German carmakers or French luxury goods exporters.

这对这些欧洲国家来说是个现实问题，因为这些政客要应对国内压力，为了向美国施压而拖垮本国经济，绝不会在选举中为你赢得任何好处。

And that's a real issue for these European countries because these are politicians dealing with their own domestic pressures and tanking your economy to make a point with The United States is not gonna do you any favors at the ballot box.

我们还应该指出，在这整个过程中，美国方面也面临着来自格陵兰计划的风险。

And we should point out that this whole time, there have also been risks on The US side from this Greenland gambit.

我们看到华尔街似乎并不喜欢这个计划。

We saw Wall Street didn't seem to like this.

有一些共和党参议员对此感到不安。

There are Republican senators that seem uncomfortable with it.

而且，说实话。

And, I mean, let's be honest.

美国公众并没有强烈的意愿想要拥有格陵兰。

It's not like there's a huge hunger within the American public to own Greenland.

因此，综合你刚才提到的欧洲面临的危险以及美国可能陷入的困境，双方确实都有强烈的动机寻找一个退出路径——而这正是他们在特朗普在达沃斯发表演讲后数小时内所表现出的：他和马克·吕特突然宣布达成某种协议。

So taken all the things that you've just described about the dangers for Europe and the potential pitfalls for The United States here, it makes sense, actually, that both sides had a real incentive to find an off ramp here, which is exactly what it looked like they did just hours after Trump gave that speech in Davos when he and Mark Rutta come out and announce that they've come to some sort of deal.

是的。

Yes.

但截至周三晚上，我们仍不清楚这个退出路径究竟有多稳固，或者它具体包含哪些内容。

Again, we don't know how solid this off ramp is or what it entails as of Wednesday evening.

但确实，看起来每个人都从这个悬崖边上退了回来。

But, yes, it does seem like everybody backed off the edge of this particular cliff.

但我得问一下，马克。

But I have to ask, Mark.

不管这个协议或潜在协议最终是什么样子，整个美国威胁以武力吞并另一个北约国家领土的闹剧，难道不正说明北约从根本上已经腐朽了吗？

Whatever this deal or potential deal turns out to be, doesn't this whole saga, this saga of The US threatening to subsume territory of another NATO state by force, doesn't that make clear that NATO is fundamentally rotten?

这个联盟的核心本应是保护彼此免受外部威胁，捍卫彼此的主权。

Like, this is an alliance that, at its core, is supposed to be about protecting each other from outside threats, defending each other's sovereignty.

而这一次，威胁却来自内部，一个成员对抗其他所有成员。

And this time, the threat came from inside the family, one member against the rest.

你正好一语中的。

You just put your finger on it right there.

当这个联盟中最大、最核心、最关键的成员现在直接威胁到另一个成员时，这从根本上使北约不再可行。

When the largest, the central, the linchpin member of the alliance now poses a direct threat to another member of the alliance, that fundamentally makes NATO no longer tenable.

所以我认为你说得对，就连我们正在讨论这个问题、这是一场严肃的讨论，以及欧洲领导人不得不根据美国可能吞并格陵兰的前景做出决策这一事实，就已经严重损害了北约的基本原则。

So I think you're right in saying that even the fact that we're having this conversation and that it's a serious conversation, and that leaders in Europe are having to make decisions based on the potential of an American takeover of Greenland, that is already deeply deeply damaging to the underlying principles of NATO.

所以，尽管今天我们达成了这项协议，或许推迟了清算的时刻，让北约看起来得以维持，但它并未解决或改变这里发生的核心现实——即支撑北约的根本理念已在这一过程中被彻底瓦解。

So while we've had this deal today that perhaps postpones the moment of reckoning, that gives NATO a sense of preservation, it doesn't resolve or change the underlying reality of what happened here, which is that the animating theories behind NATO have been unraveled through this process.

有趣的是，特朗普的外交政策在某一阶段似乎旨在说服世界其他地区摆脱对中国的依赖。

You know, what's ironic about some of this is that Trump's foreign policy, at one point, seemed to be geared toward persuading the rest of the world to break its dependence on China.

这正是美国对中国发动贸易战以及特朗普在全球舞台上所做许多事情的目标。

That was the goal of The US's tariff war with China and with a lot of what Trump was doing on the global stage.

但如今看来，他在第二任期的这种外交政策实际上却促使世界摆脱对美国的依赖，很可能有利于中国。

But now it seems as though his brand of foreign policy in term two has actually had the effect of pushing the world to break its dependence on The United States, probably to China's benefit.

这个假设正确吗？

Is that the right assumption?

换句话说，他所做的就是把这些国家推向了中国的怀抱。

I mean, in a sense, what he's done is driven these countries into the arms of China.

因为所有这些欧洲国家和其他中等强国都必须面对一个问题：如果无法依赖美国，如果不能继续留在美国阵营，那么它们就必须在大国之间寻求平衡，而未来的超级大国和经济强国正是中国。

Because one thing that all of these European and other middle power countries are gonna have to reckon with is if they can't rely on The United States, if you can't rely on being a member of the American camp, you would, in a sense, have to balance between the great powers and the great commercial power, the great economic power of the future is China.

因此，我认为你会看到更多欧洲国家、加拿大人及其他国家前往中国，与中国建立更紧密的联系，对华态度更加开放。

So one of the things that I think you will see much more of is Europeans, the Canadians, and others going to China, fashioning deeper ties with China, being more open to China.

正如你所指出的，这正是特朗普试图避免的。

And as you pointed out, that is precisely what Trump set out to avoid.

而历届美国政府一直将此视为优先事项，即利用我们强大的联盟，不仅在军事上，也在经济上，构建一个能够与中国抗衡的强大联盟。

And that's what successive American administrations have always set as a priority, which is to use our great alliances, not just militarily, but economically, and build this great coalition that would be a proper competitor for China.

现在，你将看到各国不再说：我们站在美国一边。

Now, you're going to see countries instead of saying, We're with The United States.

他们会说：我们要平衡我们的利益。

They're gonna say, well, we're gonna balance our interests.

我们会应对现在对美国所感受到的不确定性，通过与中国建立更紧密的关系来实现这一点。

We're gonna hedge against this uncertainty that we now perceive in The United States, and we're gonna do it by drawing closer to China.

另一方面，我不禁怀疑，特朗普是否会将你所描述的这种结果视为美国的胜利。

On the other hand, I have to wonder whether there's some way that Trump would actually see that outcome that you're describing as a win for The US.

比如，他会认为这扩大了美国的势力范围，展示了美国的强大力量，而将小国推入中国的怀抱，他可能只是将其视为实现自己世界观的必然结果——正如你，马克，在这个节目中所描述的，大国应将世界划分为各自主导的势力范围。

Like, he would have expanded US territory, demonstrated raw American power, and, you know, pushing smaller countries into the arms of China, he may just view that as an inevitable result of his quest to realize this world view that he has, which you, Mark, have described on this show, that the great powers should divide the globe into these spheres of influence that they dominate.

是的。

Yeah.

说得完全正确。

That's exactly right.

我认为在特朗普的世界里，是大国为其他人定下基调。

I think that in Trump's world, it's the great powers that set the tone for everybody else.

我的意思是，古希腊历史学家修昔底德有一句非常有趣的话，最近这段时间被广泛引用。

I mean, there's a really interesting saying by a Greek historian, Thucydides, it's making the rounds a lot these days.

这句话精准地概括了特朗普的哲学。

It encapsulates Trump's philosophy.

它说的是：强者做他们能做的事，弱者承受他们必须承受的。

It goes, the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.

我认为，过去几周我们最明显地看到的，但其实这一直是特朗普第二任期的核心叙事，就是将这一古老理念付诸实践。

I think in essence, what we're seeing over the last few weeks most vividly, but it really has been the story of Trump's second term, is putting that ancient idea into practice.

他确实认为三大传统强国——美国、俄罗斯和中国——正在瓜分世界利益。

He really does see three major traditional great powers dividing up the spoils, The United States, Russia, and China.

欧洲不情愿地夹在这三大强国中的两个之间，但由于缺乏成为强国的关键要素和武器，它只能在这片危险而敌意的世界中艰难周旋，尽可能地建立伙伴关系和联盟。

Europe unhappily finds itself wedged uncomfortably between two of those major great powers, but without some of the key ingredients, the key weapons that make one a great power, it has to kind of navigate this rather dangerous and unfriendly world, making partnerships and alliances where it can.

但与此同时，我认为我们需要小心，不要过度陷入衰落论的思维。

And yet at the same time, I think we need to be careful not to indulge in too much declineism.

欧洲人确实拥有未来。

The Europeans do have a future.

这个未来将要求他们做出一些艰难的选择，但也会给他们机会，成为与这些其他力量相当的影响力区域。

It's a future that will require them to make some difficult choices, but will give them a chance to become every bit as big a sphere of influence as some of these others.

毕竟，俄罗斯尽管耀武扬威，在许多方面却是一个虚弱的国家。

After all, Russia, for all of its saber rattling, is in in many ways a weak country.

在这种情况下，欧洲人似乎成功迫使特朗普退让。

And the Europeans in this case seemed to get Trump to back down.

是的。

Yeah.

为他们喝彩。

Bully for them.

在某种意义上，这似乎是这种情况下最理想的结果。

It seems like in a sense, this was the best scenario that one could have imagined for this situation.

这也提醒我们，尽管欧洲有其弱点，但它仍然是一个重要的参与者。

It's also a reminder that Europe is for all its weaknesses still a player.

他们仍然能找到方法抵御最严重的威胁。

They can still find ways to fend off the worst threats.

他们拥有庞大的经济、受过良好教育的劳动力、外交软实力以及强大的文化价值观。

They have massive economies and educated workforce, diplomatic soft power, powerful cultural values.

在唐纳德·特朗普所塑造的这个新全球秩序、这场宏大的全球博弈中，我认为今天放弃欧洲，就如同两百年前那样，将是巨大的错误。

In this new global order that Donald Trump is creating, in this great global game, I think writing off Europe today would be as big a mistake as it would have been two hundred years ago.

马克，非常感谢你。

Mark, thank you so much.

谢谢你，娜塔莉。

Thank you, Natalie.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

以下是今天你需要了解的其他内容。

Here's what else you need to know today.

周三，最高法院表明它很可能驳回总统特朗普试图解雇美联储理事丽莎·库克的行动。

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled it was likely to reject president Trump's effort to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.

特朗普去年夏天宣布要将库克撤职，声称她涉及抵押贷款欺诈。

Trump announced last summer that he was gonna remove Cook, claiming she'd engaged in mortgage fraud.

库克否认了这些指控，她的律师表示，这起案件实际上是特朗普试图改变美联储的组成，迫使董事会更快降息。

Cook has disputed the allegations, allegations, and her lawyer has said that the case was really an effort by Trump to change the makeup of the Fed and get the board to lower interest rates faster.

但关于这一点，你的立场是：没有司法审查、无需程序、无任何救济途径，总统单方面设定极低的解雇门槛，这将削弱甚至摧毁我们刚刚讨论的美联储独立性。

But on that, your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines, and that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.

在该案的口头辩论中，大法官们质疑针对库克的指控是否严重到足以让总统将其解雇。

And during the oral arguments in the case, the justices questioned whether the allegations against Cook were serious enough to allow the president to fire her.

让我们谈谈这件事在现实世界中的后续影响。

Let's talk about the real world downstream effects of this.

因为如果这成为先例，从宏观角度看，似乎我们正走向任意解雇的模式。

Because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me, just thinking big picture, we're really at at will removal.

那么，我们究竟在做什么？

So what are we doing here?

法院似乎很可能允许库克暂时保留职位，实际上冻结了总统重塑美联储的企图。

The court seemed likely to allow Cook to keep her job for now, effectively freezing the president's push to reshape the Fed.

一个众议院委员会已投票决定因比尔和希拉里·克林顿拒绝在杰弗里·爱泼斯坦调查中作证而对其处以藐视国会罪。

And a house panel has voted to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of congress for refusing to testify in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

九名民主党人与共和党人一同投票，罕见地迈出第一步，将克林顿夫妇移交司法部起诉。

Nine Democrats voted with Republicans in an extraordinary first step in referring the Clintons to the Justice Department for prosecution.

这些指控可能导致高额罚款以及最高一年的监禁。

The charges carry penalties of a steep fine and imprisonment for up to a year.

克林顿夫妇提出愿意在宣誓下接受监督委员会主席的访谈，但拒绝参加委员会的正式听证会。

The Clintons have offered to be interviewed by the chair of the Oversight Committee under oath, but have refused to appear at a formal deposition with the committee.

他们表示，这一程序具有政治动机，旨在导致他们入狱。

They've said the process is politically motivated and designed to result in their imprisonment.

本期节目由卡洛斯·帕雷多、克莱尔·泰内斯凯特和戴安娜·温制作。

Today's episode was produced by Carlos Paredo, Claire Tenesquetter, and Diana Wynne.

节目由玛丽亚·伯恩和佩吉·科维特剪辑。

It was edited by Maria Byrne and Paige Cowitt.

本节目音乐由艾莉西亚·比托普和马里昂·洛萨诺提供。

Contains music by Alicia Beetoop and Marion Lozano.

音频制作由艾莉莎·莫克利负责。

And was engineered by Alyssa Moxley.

以上就是《每日新闻》的全部内容。

That's it for The Daily.

我是娜塔莉·基特拉利夫。

I'm Natalie Kitralife.

明天见。

See you tomorrow.