Quote:
Originally Posted by ốc
Một bà bộ trưởng Vi Xi có nói mấy năm trước: ăn không chừa cái thứ gì!
Ta về không đớp ao ta
Ao người ta đớp thối tha cũng đành
(ca ao)
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ốc
Một bà bộ trưởng Vi Xi có nói mấy năm trước: ăn không chừa cái thứ gì!
Ta về không đớp ao ta
Ao người ta đớp thối tha cũng đành
(ca ao)
What is the EU anti-coercion 'bazooka' it could use against the US over Greenland?
The EU's anti-coercion instrument, which French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday mentioned activating after US President Donald Trump's tariffs threats regarding Greenland, is a trade tool that the bloc adopted in 2023 but has never used. Compared by some to a “bazooka”, it aims to respond to any country using trade weapons to pressure an EU member state.
https://s.france24.com/media/display...107331920.webp
Calls are growing louder for the EU to deploy its powerful "anti-coercion instrument" in response to US President Donald Trump's threats to impose tariffs in the standoff over Greenland.
Trump stunned Europe on Saturday when he vowed to slap EU members Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden – and non-members Britain and Norway – with levies of up to 25 percent unless the Danish territory is ceded to the US.
French President Emmanuel Macron has raised the prospect of hitting back with the EU's trade weapon that was established in 2023 but has never been activated.
The leader of the liberal Renew group in the European Parliament, Valerie Hayer, also called for the weapon to be used.
Referred to as a "bazooka" or "nuclear" option, the instrument is intended to deter economic coercion against any of the EU's 27 member states.
The EU defines coercion as a third country "applying – or threatening to apply – measures affecting trade or investment", thereby interfering "with the legitimate sovereign choices" of the EU and member states.
What does the instrument do?
The armoury allows the EU to take measures such as import and export restrictions on goods and services in its single market of 450 million people.
It also gives Brussels the power to limit American companies' access to public procurement contracts in Europe.
The EU last year threatened to use the weapon during difficult trade negotiations with Trump to avoid steep levies but the two sides struck a deal.
A major target could be American tech giants since the US has a services surplus with the EU.
Brussels previously drew up a list of US services to potentially target.
The instrument's creation came after Lithuania accused China of banning its exports because Vilnius allowed a Taiwanese diplomatic representation to be opened on its soil in 2021.
How does it work?
Both the commission and member states have the right to seek its activation, but it would then need the green light of at least 55 percent of the member countries voting in favour, representing 65 percent of the bloc's population.
Even if Brussels were to activate the weapon, it could take months before any measures were taken, according to the rules.
First, the European Commission has four months to investigate the third country accused of detrimental trade policies – then member states would have eight to 10 weeks to back any proposal for action.
Only then would the commission have a green light to prepare measures, to take effect within six months. The EU says the timeframe is indicative.
But even just triggering an investigation under the instrument would send a powerful message that Brussels is willing to fight back against its important ally.
"The United States is making a miscalculation that is not only dangerous but could be painful," Renew group's Hayer said in a statement.
"The anti-coercion instrument is our economic nuclear weapon," she said.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
/* https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...enland-tariffs
Lưỡng hổ câu thương. Hoặc một con hổ Mỹ và bầy sói Châu Âu có đến mức triệt nhau, để con Nga và Trung Quốc hưởng lợi hay không thì còn tùy thuộc vào nhóm "tà quyền Trump" hiện tại.
What is the EU's anti-coercion instrument, and how does it work?
Calls grow for the EU to deploy its ultimate trade bazooka as Trump threatens fresh tariffs to force the sale of Greenland. The anti-coercion instrument would shut off access to the European single market, punishing US companies. It is powerful on paper, but untested in real life.
Pressure is growing on European leaders to deploy its trade bazooka against the United States after President Donald Trump threatened fresh tariffs if Denmark does not agree to sell the territory of Greenland. In a scenario of coercion, the EU counts with a powerful tool in the anti-coertion instrument, and calls are intensifying for Brussels to trigger it.
But how does it work? Euronews explains:
What is the anti-coercion tool?
Adopted in 2023, the tool was designed with the US and China in mind as the world's two biggest economies become more assertive in pushing their national interests through tariffs and the weaponisation of natural resources.
Under the existing legislation, economic coercion exists when a third country “applies or threatens to apply measures affecting trade or investment in order to prevent or obtain the cessation, modification or adoption of a particular act by the European Union or a member state."
President Trump is threatening tariffs from February 1 ranging from 10% to 25% if Denmark does not agree to sell Greenland by June. On paper, it looks like coercion.
Why is the anti-coercion tool seen as bazooka?
Last year, the EU mulled different options of possible retaliation as the US threatened to hammer the bloc with tariffs on Liberation Day.
Brussels drew up a list of American items that would be hit, affecting states mostly ran by Republican governors, in a tit-for-that move. At the peak of transatlantic tensions, the EU said it would target €93 billion worth of goods including bourbon, airplane components which would have dented Boeing, soybeans and poultry among other items.
Ultimately, the EU decided not to retaliate and took a deal which tripled tariffs on the bloc to 15% while cutting duties to zero on American industrial goods. While the deal was seen as imbalanced and unfairly tilted in favour of Washington, the Commission said it had provided clarity and stability for businesses in a difficult geopolitical scenario.
At the time, the idea of using the trade bazooka was only floated, but never seriously considered. That is because the anti-coercion tool was seen as the nuclear option.
The ACI allows the EU to shut off access to the European single market representing 500 million consumers. It limits trade licenses and access to public procurement tenders. For American services, it means the European market would be off the table.
How is coercion established and how long does it take?
The tool is not automatic, and it takes time to implement. For many, the power behind it comes in the form of deterrence. Once the trade bazooka is out, it is clear that the EU means business and is willing to enter a fight with the single market as leverage.
Once the question of coercion is raised, the European Commission has four months to assess the case and the actions of the third country in question, after which EU member states must decide by qualified majority whether to activate the instrument or not.
If that happens, a negotiation phase with the country in question begins.
If talks fail, the EU can deploy a broad range of countermeasures beyond tariffs.
The tool covers services, investments and access to public procurement. It also allows for steps such as excluding foreign companies from EU tenders or partially suspending the protection of intellectual property rights.
The implications are such, that any response under the ACI must be “proportionate and not exceed the level of injury to the European Union".
What are the implications for the EU?
There are many second-round effects. The first one stems from the fact that the ACI has never been used. Member states have often talked about it, but don't really know what kind of implications it could bring about on political and geoeconomic terms.
This is why countries from Germany to Italy have repeatedly cautioned against deploying it too quickly or without a good legal case behind it. Berlin and Rome were two of the member states most in favour of cutting a deal with the US last year.
Last year, even as the US threatened to punitive tariffs on the bloc, the EU also feared that deploying such strong measures against the US could backfire and damage the transatlantic relation. The EU still hopes to keep Washington engaged in the continent's security through NATO and discussions around Ukraine's peace settlement.
Beyond the US, the EU also considered triggering the ACI after China began weaponising the export licensing of rare earth and critical minerals - vital for Europe’s tech and defence industries - at the end of last year. Ultimately, the EU opted for dialogue.
So, what happens next?
The EU could decide this time around President Trump has crossed the line and gather a qualified majority to trigger the anti-coercion instrument. European leaders have said they will not be "blackmailed" and expressed full solidarity for Denmark and Greenland.
If they go ahead, that will likely mean a new trade war and fresh escalation, but it may be the price to pay for the European Union to defend the sovereignty of a member state.
Unlike the EU-US deal signed last year where a compromise was deemed possible, Copenhagen has repeatedly said there is no room for negotiation when it comes to transferring the sovereignty of Greenland and has rejected any possibility of a sale.
The EU could go back to the retaliatory tariffs it drew up last year and - this time around - implement them hoping the impact on US companies and consumers ahead of the midterm elections where Republicans risk losing control of the House of Representatives and the Senate prompts Trump to change course.
One thing is clear, if the tariffs on Denmark and its allies go into effect on February 1, the European Union and the United States will enter a new trade war.
/*src.: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...w-does-it-work
French President Emmanuel Macron delivers speech at Davos Forum
Bài diễn văn hay nhất trong ngày ở Davos thuộc về thủ tướng Gia Nã Đại, điềm đạm, sovereign, chính xác.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF1eumAZ1PE
Tuồng 3 - màn 1 cảnh 2:
Fact check: Trump's speech at the World Economic Forum
Monir Ghaedi
16 hours ago
At Davos, Trump made bold claims about Greenland, NATO spending and China’s wind power.
DW Fact Check examines where his statements clash with historical records and current data.
https://static.dw.com/image/75598863_1004.webp
Greenland, the centerpiece of Trump's speech
Trump repeatedly spoke about the US military presence in Greenland during World War II, presenting it as territory the US had once "returned" to Denmark.
Claim: "We fought for Denmark. (...) We were fighting to save it. (...) All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we had already been a trustee, but respectfully returned it to Denmark not long after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians, and others in World War II. (...) We had it, and we gave it back to them."
DW Fact check: Misleading
The US did help defend Greenland during World War II, but it never owned the territory and therefore could not have "given it back" to Denmark.
Nor did the US fight a separate military campaign to liberate or "save" Denmark itself. When Nazi Germany occupied Denmark in April 1940, Greenland became cut off from the Danish government in Copenhagen.
To prevent Germany from exploiting Greenland's strategic location and its cryolite mines(critical for aircraft aluminum production), the United States intervened with the approval of Denmark's ambassador in Washington who acted independently because Denmark was under occupation.
The US established military bases, weather stations and airfieldsto defend Greenland — but its legal sovereignty never changed.
Although the German Wehrmacht operated a weather station on Greenland and there were isolated clashes between the German army and Danish-led island patrols, Greenland was never completely occupied by Nazi Germany.
After World War II, Greenland remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark. US military activity continued through the Cold War, most notably with the construction of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base). This presence was based on defense agreements, not on a transfer of ownership. At no point did Nazi Germany control Greenland nor did the United States acquire it from Germany.
US cannot defend Greenland without ownership?
Claim: "And all we're asking for is to get Greenland, including the right title and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. You can't defend it on a lease. Number one. Legally, it's not defensible that way. Totally."
Fact check: Misleading
The United States is already mandated to help defend Greenland. Its defense arrangements are governed by agreements between Denmark and the United States, as well as by NATO obligations.
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and is protected by NATO's collective defense clause under Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all NATO members.
The US has bilateral defense agreements with Denmark that allow US military to operate in Greenland with Danish consent. Ownership is not legally required for defense cooperation if the government of that territory consents to defense cooperation.
Many countries — including the United States — operate military bases abroad under lease or basing agreements without claiming ownership.
According to a 2024 report by the US Congressional Research Service, the Department of Defense manages or uses more than 128 foreign bases in at least 51 countries. A 2021 report by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft estimates the number could exceed 750 installations across 80 countries and territories.
Examples include major bases in the Philippines, where the US maintained major military bases such as Clark air base and Subic Bay naval base for decades after World War II under long-term agreements without infringing on Philippines sovereignty.
Claims about NATO spending
Trump repeated familiar assertions about the US bearing nearly all NATO costs.
Claim: "Until I came along," the US "was paying for virtually 100% of NATO," Trump said, adding, "We paid for, in my opinion, 100% of NATO."
DW Fact check: False
Official NATO figures show that in 2016, the year before Trump took office, the US accounted for a little over 70% of total defense spending by all NATO members. This is significant — but nowhere near 100%.
The US also contributes about 22% of NATO's relatively small common budget, which covers alliance headquarters and administrative costs, with the remainder paid by other member states.
Trump also made other inaccurate statements about NATO, including:
Claim: "The United States had never received anything from NATO, despite having paid for it."
Fact check: False
This claim ignores the support the United States received from NATO allies following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The collective defense clause under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was triggered on September 12, 2001 — the first and, so far, only time in NATO's history.
As a result, several NATO countries, including Germany, participated in international military missions alongside the US, including the International Security Assistance Force, Operation Enduring Freedom , and the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.
The deployment of the German armed forces in Afghanistan lasted around 20 years and, according to the German government, cost approximately €12.3 billion through to August 2021. A total of 60 German soldiers lost their lives during the mission, according to Bundeswehr data.
China and wind energy
Claim: "China makes almost all wind turbines. And yet I couldn't find any wind farms in China." Trump further said China was very smart because it sold wind turbines to "stupid people" while not using them itself.
Fact check: False
In absolute terms, China produces more wind energy than any other country in the world. According to US Energy Information Administration (EIA), China generated 521 gigawatts of wind power in 2024 — around 40% of global wind energy production. The EIA notes that China is also expanding solar and wind energy "at record speed."
However, China still lags behind some countries in terms of the share of renewables in its electricity mix. According to Ember Energy, wind power accounted for about 12% of China's electricity mix in the first half of 2025. Overall, renewable energy sources made up around 23%, while coal accounted for 56%.
/* src.: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-tru...rum/a-75601073
Chờ xem. :)
EU agrees on complete ban of Russian gas imports by 2027
Timothy Jones with Reuters
6 hours ago
The European Union has taken another step toward ending its energy reliance on Russia by agreeing to stop gas imports from the country. But not all countries voted in favor of the ban.
Ministers from the 27 EU member states on Monday gave their final approval to a regulation that will see all Russian gas imports into the bloc banned by late 2027, a vote that allows the measure to pass into law.
The agreement is in line with the European Union's pledge to cut ties with its former main gas supplier amid security fears stoked by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022.
What does the policy entail?
Under the agreement, the EU will halt imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) *by the end of 2026 and of pipeline gas by September 30, 2027.
Under the law, that end date can be moved back to November 1, 2027, if a member state is having difficulties reaching its required gas storage levels with other sources ahead of the winter heating season.
According to the website of the Council of the European Union, member states will have until March 1 this year to "prepare national plans to diversify gas supplies and identify potential challenges in replacing Russian gas."
It said that if supply security is "seriously threatened in one or more EU countires," the import ban could be suspended for up to four weeks.
Hungarian and Slovakian opposition
Although unanimity is normally required for resolutions by the bloc, this ban was designed to be approved only by a reinforced majority, using trade and energy laws that avoid national vetoes.
This enabled it to be pushed through despite the opposition of Hungary and Slovakia, both of which remain heavily dependent on Russian energy imports and have kept up friendly relations with Moscow despite its illegal invasion.
Hungary said it would take the case to the European Court of Justice.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine almost four years ago, it supplied more than 40% of the EU's gas, but that share dropped to around 13% in 2025, according to EU data.
/* src.: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-agrees-on-c...027/a-75660043