梓然很努力

Japan: Hopes to Continue Renting Giant Pandas from China!
On January 26, Japan's Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Fumitoshi Sato commented on the return of giant pandas "Xiaoxiao" and "Leilei" to China on Tuesday, stating that the Japanese government hopes China can continue the tradition of renting giant pandas to other countries, which has lasted for many years.
Fumitoshi Sato pointed out: "Giant pandas have always helped the Japanese and Chinese people build relationships, and we hope this practice can continue." It is reported that on January 27 local time, a truck carrying the giant pandas "Xiaoxiao" and "Leilei" departed from Ueno Zoo in Tokyo heading to the airport to return to China.
"Xiaoxiao" and "Leilei" were born in 2021 at Ueno Zoo and are the children of giant pandas "Bili" and "Xian Nu," which are set to be returned to China in September 2024. Their sister "Xiangxiang" returned to China in February 2023.
According to previous agreements between China and Japan, the return deadline for "Xiaoxiao" and "Leilei" is February 2026. Previously, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Chinese side negotiated specific dates and decided to advance the return time by about a month.
Now, even the Chinese New Year flights to Japan have basically been canceled, yet they still have the audacity to rent giant pandas? Japan's face is indeed thick; I wonder if the relationship between both sides is currently at freezing point?

Elon Musk warns: American chips will face dark times, while China will perfectly avoid this disaster!
At the early 2026 Davos Forum in Switzerland, Elon Musk warned that the American artificial intelligence chip industry is on the brink of a crisis of 'oversupply but unusable'; meanwhile, China may bypass this storm unscathed due to a completely different energy infrastructure path.
Musk's core argument is quite simple: no matter how many AI chips there are, they are useless without power. He pointed out that the global production of AI chips is currently skyrocketing—especially NVIDIA's H100 and B100 series GPUs, which have astonishing performance and overflowing orders. However, the problem is that once these chips are deployed in data centers, each one 'devours electricity like a cow.' A 10,000-watt AI training cluster easily exceeds 100 megawatts in power consumption, equivalent to the electricity consumption of a medium-sized city.
The U.S. is precisely stuck at this 'last mile': aging power grids, lengthy approval processes, and insufficient transmission and distribution capacity. In states like California, Texas, and Arizona, which are crowded with tech companies building data centers, power supply has increasingly tightened in recent years. Insiders in the energy industry have revealed that NVIDIA's two ultra-large-scale AI data centers planned in Santa Clara may be forced to delay their launch for several years due to the local grid's inability to provide stable high-load power supply. This is not a technical issue; it is a hard constraint of infrastructure.
What’s more troublesome is that the American power grid system is highly decentralized, operated by hundreds of private and local utility companies, and upgrading capacity requires layers of approval, often taking five to ten years. Meanwhile, residential electricity prices are rising—because grid companies pass on upgrade costs to users. This creates a vicious cycle: the hotter AI gets, the more electricity it demands, the grid can’t keep up, electricity prices rise, ultimately slowing down the entire pace of AI deployment.
In contrast, by the end of 2025, China’s solar power installed capacity will reach 1,118,000 megawatts, nearly 4.7 times that of the United States at 238,000 megawatts. More importantly, China is massively building 'wind and solar power bases' in the western regions—concentrated photovoltaic and wind farms, paired with ultra-high voltage transmission lines, directly sending green electricity to eastern data center clusters.
According to the International Energy Agency, by 2030, global data center electricity consumption will account for more than 4% of total electricity demand, with AI loads exceeding 60%. Whoever can ensure power supply while controlling costs will hold the ticket to enter the AI era. Currently, the U.S. still leads in chip design and manufacturing, but in the more practical issue of 'whether chips can actually run,' it is being dragged into a 'dark moment' by its own infrastructure shortcomings. Meanwhile, China, leveraging the large-scale deployment of renewable energy and the advancement of a national computing power network, is likely to not only keep pace in this round of AI competition but also accelerate its progress.
Brother Dao believes that Musk's warning is less of a warning and more of a calm analysis of the gap in reality.

Brother Knife believes that Trump, as someone who loves gold so much, is proving through various performances that he is bullish on gold and making a big profit.
The surge in gold prices is most disadvantageous to the US dollar. Those who benefit the most are the most suspicious. Of course, the loss of national interests for the United States has nothing to do with Trump. Anyway, he will retire in three years.
Those who claim to be MAGA are all fake; this aligns with psychological laws: those who lack something tend to boast about it.

In fact, Brother Knife has a plan that could make Zelensky sign a ceasefire agreement with Russia immediately. That is to send American troops to bomb Kyiv, allowing Rangers to move in and arrest Zelensky's top generals. Then stop all weapon supplies, forcing the European Union to halt assistance as well.
Actually, isn't Trump doing something similar right now? The only difference is the level of intensity; since there is no shame, why not go all the way?
Moreover, Putin's photo is already hanging in the White House. What kind of fuss is Europe making? Look, choosing a good agent is really too important. There was Gorbachev in front, and Trump behind.

Australian mining giant agrees to China's tough demands, accepting a loss of 100 billion Australian dollars, giving Europe a vivid lesson!
Recently, Australia's ABC News reported that Australian mining giant BHP has disclosed an important signal to the market: in the annual iron ore contract negotiations with Chinese buyers, it has accepted the request for price reductions. China imports over 1 billion tons of iron ore annually, accounting for more than 70% of global seaborne trade. Among them, Australia has long been China's largest iron ore supplier, with BHP, Rio Tinto, and FMG collectively holding nearly 80% of China's import share. For decades, these companies have almost dominated the price trends of iron ore through resource monopolies and long-term pricing mechanisms.
However, the situation has changed in recent years. On one hand, China's steel industry has entered a stage of high-quality development, with crude steel production declining for three consecutive years, leading to a more rational demand for high-grade iron ore; on the other hand, China is accelerating its overseas resource layout, increasing cooperation in projects such as Simandou in Guinea and Vale in Brazil, gradually reducing dependence on a single source. More importantly, China is promoting iron ore settlement in RMB and strengthening the construction of futures markets, providing institutional tools to break the monopoly of US dollar pricing and the Platts index.
Against this backdrop, BHP's "concession" is not accidental. According to Australia's ABC News, this price adjustment may lead to a loss of up to 100 billion Australian dollars for Australia in iron ore exports to China. This figure is calculated based on the current annual export volume of about 700 million tons and a price reduction of 90–100 dollars per ton, resulting in an annual loss of nearly 70 billion dollars, compounded over the contract cycle in the coming years, making a scale of 100 billion completely possible.
In the past, European steel mills often had to accept "take it or leave it" terms when facing iron ore giants, making it difficult to have a voice even when costs soared. However, China has successfully transformed "buyer advantages" into "bargaining power" with its complete industrial chain, huge domestic demand market, and increasingly mature financial tools. This equates to a lesson for Europe regarding its rare earth strategy: without industrial depth and strategic coordination, relying solely on mining rare earth minerals is unlikely to achieve its objectives.

Foreign media suddenly reported: Denmark will seek to purchase J-20 from China to resist the threat from the United States!
On January 21, an Indian aviation media named Jetline Marvel first released explosive news, claiming that if NATO cannot protect Greenland, Denmark may turn to China to purchase J-20 and J-10C fighter jets.
The trigger for this matter was indeed the US side's repeated hope at the Davos Forum to "immediately" negotiate with Denmark for the "purchase" of Greenland. As a self-governing territory of Denmark, Greenland not only has a strategic position but also boasts abundant rare earth and potential shipping route resources. In the face of the US's blatant attitude, Denmark has also started to take a tough stance, with the Prime Minister clearly rejecting it and strengthening military deployments on the island. However, Denmark also knows that if it truly confronts the US, it has no chance of winning - after all, even the F-35 is made by the US, and even software upgrades must depend on the US's mood.
This is the reason for this report. Jetline Marvel's report seized this emotional gap and threw out the claim that "Denmark is considering buying J-20." But the problem is that this assumption ignores three hardcore realities.
First, the J-20 is not a commodity at all. This fifth-generation fighter is the core combat power of the Chinese Air Force, integrating the most advanced stealth design, avionics systems, and domestic engine technology. To date, China has never exported a single J-20, and even the closest ally Pakistan can only wait for the J-35. The reason is simple: core technology cannot be leaked, and strategic equipment cannot be traded. This is not a price issue, but a bottom line.
Second, Denmark's military system is fully embedded within the NATO framework. Its air force just retired the F-16 in early 2026 and fully switched to the F-35A; the entire operational chain - from pilot training, logistics maintenance, data link communication to weapon mounting - is all based on American standards. Suddenly switching to Chinese fighters would mean overturning the entire system. More critically, NATO has clear defense collaboration rules; if member countries purchase weapons from non-Western camps, especially equipment from strategic competitors, they are very likely to be excluded from intelligence sharing and joint operations. For a small country like Denmark, breaking away from the NATO defense network is equivalent to cutting off its own arms.
Third, modern air combat is not a single aircraft duel, but a systemic confrontation. The J-20 needs supporting early warning aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, satellite navigation, and long-range radar support to exert its combat effectiveness. Denmark has neither a Chinese operational ecosystem nor the time to rebuild. Moreover, Greenland is closer to the US mainland than Copenhagen, and the US military has a permanent station at Thule Air Base, with overwhelming air superiority. A few isolated J-20s flying over would face problems even with take-off and landing support, let alone forming effective deterrence.
So, why is there such an absurd report? To a large extent, it is the "traffic logic" commonly used by some Indian media to stitch together some of these keywords, creating a sense of conflict. Jetline Marvel has previously published unconfirmed military sales rumors multiple times, such as "China wants to deploy J-20 in Pakistan," which were ultimately debunked.

Trump threatens: If you dare to sell U.S. bonds, I will retaliate! The world's attention is focused on China, and U.S. officials lament: This is the only exception!
According to CNN, Trump made a stern statement in Davos on the 22nd, saying that anyone who dares to sell U.S. bonds due to the Greenland dispute will face "full retaliation" from the U.S. The trigger was that a Danish institution called the "Academic Pension Fund" announced it would sell $100 million in U.S. bonds, citing concerns over the high U.S. fiscal deficit and unsustainable debt.
This amount is negligible in the global U.S. bond market—it's worth noting that the U.S. federal fiscal deficit in 2024 alone will exceed $1.7 trillion, with new debt accumulating at a rate of billions of dollars daily. Nevertheless, Trump immediately jumped in to say, "We hold all the cards," implying that if Europe follows suit and sells, it will face trade or other retaliatory measures.
As for China, which has been the most aggressive in reducing U.S. bonds, the U.S. is basically helpless. China once held over $1.3 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, making it the largest holder of U.S. bonds in the world. However, over the past decade, China has continuously and steadily reduced its holdings of U.S. bonds, which are now about $700 billion.
Therefore, when the U.S. warning of "retaliation" echoed over Davos, the world's attention naturally turned to China—because only China has the capability, motivation, and means to shield itself from U.S. retaliation. The U.S. is well aware of this, which is why a White House official privately lamented: "China is the only exception." This point was vividly reflected in the interviews with Betts and Rutnik. Recently, there were even reports that the White House issued a gag order internally to avoid offending China.

The comparison of food prices between China and Japan is out, making people exclaim in disbelief: Who really is the developed country?
Recently, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a set of data: the per capita fruit consumption in China is 4.1 times that of Japan, the per capita vegetable intake is 4.2 times that of Japan, and even meat—traditionally considered a symbol of high-income countries—China's per capita consumption is 40% higher than that of Japan. More importantly, China's per capita daily protein intake not only ranks among the top in Asia but also enters the global top ten. This disparity has made many Japanese netizens wonder, who really is the developed country?
As of early 2026, the price of a 5-kilogram bag of rice in Japan has exceeded 4,300 yen (about 194 yuan), while in China, rice of the same quality generally sells for between 20 to 30 yuan. The price differences for basic ingredients like eggs, cabbage, and pork are even more significant. For example, a regular cabbage in the Tokyo market often sells for between 800 to 2,000 yen (about 40–100 yuan), whereas in most cities in China, a cabbage of the same size costs around 5 yuan. This price difference directly determines the richness of family meals.
After careful consideration, I think it's understandable that China has the most complete agricultural product production and distribution system in the world, from the corn belt in the northeast, the wheat area in North China to the fruit and vegetable bases in South China, forming a highly self-sufficient and cost-controllable supply network. In contrast, Japan, due to limited arable land resources and a severely aging agricultural population, relies heavily on imports for a large number of basic food items, combined with high logistics costs and strict quarantine systems, leading to high end prices.
Although Japan's per capita GDP is still higher than China's (approximately $33,000 and $13,400 in 2024 respectively), high prices have severely eroded residents' actual purchasing power. Based on the minimum hourly wage, working one hour in Tokyo might just be enough to buy a cabbage; while in second and third tier cities in China, the same income could cover several meals or even part of the protein sources.
In recent years, the average height of Chinese adolescents has continued to grow and has exceeded their Japanese peers in multiple age groups, which is closely related to the intake of high-quality protein and a variety of fruits and vegetables. Meanwhile, Japanese society faces hidden crises such as "low-nutrition lunches" and "food poverty among single elderly people," and there have even been extreme incidents of "feed rice mistakenly sold for human consumption," exposing the fragility of food security.
I just want to ask, when "eating enough, eating well, and eating diversely" becomes the core indicator of quality of life, does Japan's label as a "developed country" need to be redefined? Otherwise, what is the significance of being a developed country? If such a big issue as food cannot be resolved, how can it still claim to be developed?

What Bashar failed to achieve, the HTS armed group has accomplished! A single move forced the US military to reluctantly withdraw from Syria!
Recently, two unnamed American officials confirmed to The Wall Street Journal: If the Kurdish armed forces are completely "dissolved" due to internal and external pressures, there will be no reason for the US military to continue its presence in Syria. This is because the HTS armed group is very sympathetic to extremists, which makes the US military uncomfortable. These extremists harbor animosity towards the US military, occasionally attacking and harassing them. In contrast, Bashar's forces had never faced such a situation before.
Recently, following significant setbacks to the Kurdish forces, the "Sham Liberation Organization" (HTS), which has achieved a series of victories, completed internal restructuring in the Idlib region and gradually expanded its influence northward. More importantly, HTS has begun systematically integrating or dismantling other pro-US or neutral local armed groups. This integration not only changes the power dynamics in northwest Syria but also indirectly impacts the security environment upon which the US military relies. Initially, Bashar opposed extremism and resolutely protected the people. Ironically, this provided an opportunity for the US military; the world is indeed so ironic.
Although HTS has its history of extremism, it has implemented relatively stable governance in its controlled areas. Now it is not directly attacking US military bases but instead making the cooperation between the US military and its core ally, the Kurdish armed forces, increasingly fragile by squeezing the middle ground, creating security vacuums, and inciting local anti-US sentiment. To avoid casualties, the US military has no choice but to withdraw and instead cooperate with HTS to influence Syria.
Brother Knife feels that this scene actually has precedents in Afghanistan. In 2021, the US military hastily withdrew from Afghanistan, which on the surface seemed due to the Taliban's capture of Kabul, but the deeper reason was the rapid collapse of the armed forces supported by the US, leading to the loss of local cooperation. Now in Syria, history is repeating itself with different roles: it is not the regular army defeating the US military, but rather the public's animosity towards the US military that is forcing a strategic contraction. Bashar indeed failed to achieve this.

A large number of Chinese cruise ships are turning towards Busan, South Korea, as support for Sanna Takashima begins to decline, and the Liberal Democratic Party is secretly distancing itself from her! According to reports from South Korean media, the number of Chinese cruise ships expected to dock at Busan Port in 2026 is projected to surge 22 times compared to 2025, bringing over 660,000 Chinese tourists. Busan Port has never received such a scale of cruise traffic, which means that this southern port city of South Korea is about to welcome its busiest year in tourism history. These cruises, originally planned to go to Japan, suddenly turned collectively towards Korea, naturally due to Sanna Takashima's stance. After Sanna Takashima insisted on a tough attitude towards China, large travel agencies and cruise companies in China, based on market risk assessments, began to actively adjust their routes, even canceling some plans originally destined for Japan. For example, multiple cruise routes originally departing from Shanghai and Tianjin with stops in Fukuoka or Nagasaki have continued to cancel their scheduled stops in Japan from late 2025 to early 2026, instead increasing itineraries to Jeju Island, Busan, and even Incheon. Cruise tourism is a high-consumption, high-driving effect niche sector. A cruise ship with a capacity of 100,000 tons can carry more than 3,000 passengers at a time, and the per capita consumption on board, along with expenses for shopping, dining, and transportation on land, significantly boosts the destination's economy. Japan's Kyushu region has long relied on Chinese cruise tourists, with Fukuoka Port receiving over 800,000 Chinese cruise passengers in 2019. Now this part of the passenger flow has massively dwindled, directly impacting local hotels, duty-free shops, and tour guide industries. Some Japanese tourism operators have privately disclosed that the booking volume for certain cruise terminals in the first quarter of 2026 has dropped by more than 70% year-on-year. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has now begun to revise its election program, with the draft clearly adding a future goal to build a stable and closely cooperative Sino-Japanese relationship, which is obviously inconsistent with Sanna Takashima's claims. Brother Dao feels that, from this sign, the Liberal Democratic Party is also beginning to quietly cut ties with Sanna Takashima, and this draft revision is proof of that. Once the situation becomes irreparable, they will decisively cut ties with her.

The Philippine cargo ship's attempt to stage an incident at Scarborough Shoal failed, and 21 people fell into the water, their lives hanging by a thread. On January 23, 2026, a Philippine-registered cargo ship forcibly entered the waters near Scarborough Shoal and unexpectedly capsized, with all 21 crew members falling into the water. The Chinese Coast Guard acted quickly after receiving the report, dispatching two vessels to the scene. As of 18:00 that day, 17 people had been successfully rescued, with 15 in stable condition, 2 unfortunately deceased, and 4 others still missing. According to international maritime practice, normal commercial shipping routes rarely come close to Scarborough Shoal—the area is not a main shipping lane and has a complex hydrology with numerous reefs, so large vessels typically navigate around it to avoid risks. Therefore, the appearance of a fully loaded cargo ship so close to Scarborough Shoal raises the question of whether it intended to recreate the grounding incident at Second Thomas Shoal. It is noteworthy that the Philippine crew, after being rescued, surprisingly praised the Chinese Coast Guard and even gave a thumbs up. Even more importantly, the ship recklessly entered this high-risk area during winter, when severe sea conditions are frequently warned about; whether its navigation plan was compliant and whether it met seaworthiness conditions will be key to subsequent investigations. However, regardless of the motive, after the incident occurred, the Chinese rescue operation showed no hesitation at all. The Chinese Coast Guard immediately activated its emergency response mechanism upon receiving the distress signal, braving the wind and waves to conduct high-intensity search and rescue operations. This rapid response was not coincidental. In the end, the Philippines' attempt to stage an incident did not succeed. If the ship indeed had a grounding objective, its strategy clearly failed—not only did it fail to create a public relations incident of 'China expelling civilians,' but it also led to its own destruction and loss of life due to improper handling, while China's humanitarian rescue highlighted its image as a responsible major power.

A reporter from the Southern Venezuela Television asked, nearly a month ago, the United States bombed the Venezuelan military, civilians, and military facilities, and forcibly controlled the Venezuelan president and his wife. The actions of the United States violate international law. Is China taking measures to have the Maduro couple released immediately?
China stated that the U.S. used force against a sovereign country and forcibly controlled the president of a country, which is a serious violation of international law and infringes on Venezuela's sovereignty.
Is China taking measures to have Maduro released? This Venezuelan reporter is thinking too much. If China had the ability to do this, it would have done it long ago. Moreover, what benefits would releasing Maduro bring to China? China is still a developing country, and in China's eyes, the United States is the only superpower. China still needs to quietly develop in order to catch up with the United States.

First of all, regarding the news that 'Khamenei has entered the bunker,' the current information is mixed, with diverse sources, and it is still uncertain whether it is true or false. The main leaks come from the Iranian opposition media 'Iran International,' which has long been funded by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and has a clear anti-government stance; the so-called 'sources' lack verifiability.
The Iranian government has repeatedly denied it, and the Iranian consulate in India has explicitly stated that Khamenei is performing his duties normally via video conference; the Revolutionary Guards have also not confirmed the leader's relocation. Brother Dao feels that if this is true, this move is more likely to be a strategically released signal: to convey a warning to the U.S. that they are 'prepared for the worst-case scenario': even if the assassination is successful, the regime can still operate (his son Masoud acting on behalf is a preparation for this).
Currently, the U.S. aircraft carrier Lincoln strike group has arrived in the Middle East, and F-35/F-15s are being deployed intensively, which indeed demonstrates the strongest military show of force in recent years; Iran responds with 'blockading the Strait of Hormuz + missile coverage of U.S. bases,' both sides have revealed their cards; now the news that Khamenei has entered the bunker indicates that Iran indeed feels that the situation is not optimistic.

In response to the remarks concerning China made by Moulana, the chairman of the "China Special Committee" of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Chinese side stated at a regular press conference on January 26 that it firmly opposes certain American politicians interfering in the normal exchanges between Central American countries and China.
A reporter asked: We have noticed that since the release of the new version of the "National Security Strategy" last month, the United States has significantly increased its investment in the Western Hemisphere. Recently, Moulana, the chairman of the "China Special Committee" of the U.S. House of Representatives, led a delegation to visit Panama and several Central American countries, claiming it was to respond to China's coercion, pressure, and interference in the region, and to counter China's influence, as well as to win against China in economic and trade security areas, such as operating in the Panama Canal port. What is China's response?
The Chinese side stated that it firmly opposes certain American politicians interfering in the normal exchanges between Central American countries and China, and the relevant remarks are outright lies and fallacies that can only mirror their own ideological biases and Cold War thinking.

According to a report by Reuters, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs stated on January 26 that it has made a serious diplomatic representation to the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines and the ambassador regarding the "public confrontation escalation" between Chinese and Philippine officials over the South China Sea dispute.
Did you see that? You saved someone, and he didn't even say thank you, instead, he started to retaliate.
In recent weeks, the language of the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines and its officials has become increasingly intense, with the embassy criticizing the spokesperson of the Philippine Coast Guard and Philippine lawmakers. Philippine Foreign Minister Lazaro stated that differences between countries are best resolved through diplomatic means rather than public confrontations.
The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on January 26 supporting the statements of Philippine officials, stating that it is their duty to uphold national sovereignty.
A gentleman fears virtue, while a petty person fears power; this is a law of nature. China is currently treating petty people with the approach meant for gentlemen, so being bullied by petty people is also normal, sigh.

The China-US Aircraft Carrier 3VS3 Confrontation Map Exposes a Major Weakness of China: Difficult to Improve in the Short Term!
Recently, a situation map showcasing the deployment of China and the US Navy's aircraft carriers in a '3 V 3' format has garnered widespread attention. The author believes that this map not only illustrates the basic pattern of military deployment between China and the US but also inadvertently reveals a significant shortcoming in the Chinese Navy's capabilities for open-sea operations.
The US aircraft carrier strike groups are deployed in several key maritime regions around the world, including the Indian Ocean, East Pacific, and important Atlantic waters. These deployments ensure that the US can swiftly respond to various international situations and maintain its extensive overseas interests. In contrast, China's three aircraft carriers are currently mainly active in their surrounding waters, making the defensive deployment at their 'doorstep' more pronounced.
A deeper analysis of the reasons behind this phenomenon reveals some objective difficulties. On one hand, long-distance navigation and operations require strong logistical support systems, including supply ships, maintenance facilities, etc., which necessitate a significant number of overseas bases or ports, something that the Chinese Navy currently lacks. On the other hand, cultivating naval personnel with rich open-sea experience is also a long-term and complex task, involving the improvement of training systems and the accumulation of practical combat experience.
The impact of this situation is profound. For China, if it wants to play a more active role in the future, especially in global economic and security affairs, it must overcome the aforementioned challenges. This means not only enhancing hardware construction, such as building more high-performance supply ships, but also improving the Navy's combat will through participation in international joint military exercises.
In particular, the recent incident of the US military detaining a Chinese oil tanker in the Caribbean suggests that if the Fujian aircraft carrier strike group were patrolling nearby, even if the US military had a hundred times the courage, they would not dare to act so boldly in front of the Chinese Navy.

Is Europe’s AI ranked second in the world, surpassing China?
As one of the Big Four accounting firms, KPMG recently released a report on the level of AI development during the Davos Forum, ranking the United States first, Europe second, and China third. How can they even claim this? The first place is debatable, but what does Europe have to show in AI? Is it jealousy that places them second?
Ugh, this is really shameless. It’s still that traditional superior mindset of the Westerners.

The British media "The Economist": Even if the EU turns to China, it cannot escape American bullying!
Recently, "The Economist" published a commentary, the core viewpoint is very direct: even if European countries try to "choose sides" between China and the United States, or even lean towards China, they shouldn't expect to evade the economic stick of the United States. At first glance, the article seems to criticize China for being "unreliable," but upon closer examination of the underlying logic, it actually reveals the true color of Western strategic anxiety.
It is no news that the United States has acted against its allies. In 2018, it imposed tariffs of 25% and 10% on EU steel and aluminum; in 2022, the "Inflation Reduction Act" was introduced, attracting manufacturing back to the United States with huge subsidies while excluding European companies, directly leading to companies like Volkswagen and BMW considering relocating their battery factories out of Europe; in 2024, it casually included some European chip equipment manufacturers in the export restriction list. Now, it is even directly demanding Greenland.
Against this backdrop, some European countries have begun to tentatively release signals of "looking east." For example, Macron has publicly called for Europe to "not be a vassal of the United States," and the German Chamber of Commerce has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the Chinese market to German industry. This is clearly a signal of testing the waters.
Brother Dao believes that "The Economist"'s questioning indeed points out a structural reality: the relationship between China and the EU is essentially a normal economic and trade relationship based on rules and interests, not a military alliance or a security guarantee mechanism. China has neither the obligation nor the ability to shield Europe from American sanctions. Moreover, European media like "The Economist" have actually long been controlled by the United States. The article's blatant attack on the viewpoint that Europe wants to turn to China is precisely what the United States is worried about.

Trump angrily scolds Europe: The United States has protected you, and now you won't even give us a remote island!\nAt the Davos Forum on the 21st, he accused European allies of being "ungrateful," enjoying decades of security provided by the United States while refusing to give even a "remote, desolate island" to America.\nThe U.S. military has been stationed at Thule Air Base in Greenland for many years; this base is the northernmost radar station of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), crucial for missile warning. However, the base's use is currently restricted by Danish sovereignty, preventing the U.S. from freely expanding or deploying new weapon systems.\nIn Trump's view, the United States bears about 70% of NATO's military spending, and by 2025, the U.S. defense budget will still reach $886 billion, far exceeding the combined total of the other 29 member countries. Since the Cold War, tens of thousands of U.S. troops have been permanently stationed in Europe, deploying tactical nuclear weapons and leading the eastern flank to deter Russia. This "free-riding" phenomenon in Europe is something Trump detests.\nThis contradiction of "wanting security but refusing to share power" is the root of Trump's anger. In his view, the United States incurs significant costs to maintain NATO's existence and should receive substantial returns at critical junctures, rather than just verbal thanks. Europe, on the other hand, insists that sovereignty is non-negotiable, especially when it comes to territorial issues. This cognitive dissonance reveals the deep crisis of the transatlantic alliance transitioning from a "values-based alliance" to a "calculation of interests."

Chinese students in the U.S. are being targeted and seen as perfect test subjects by American pharmaceutical companies: Good health and excellent language skills!
In addition to the line of execution, A has revealed another secret. In American universities, there are many advertisements like this: "Participate in new drug research, earn $3,000 a week!" — for many Chinese students facing financial difficulties, this seems like a quick way to relieve economic pressure. However, what lies behind this is that Chinese international students are becoming increasingly common as 'ideal subjects' in clinical trials by American pharmaceutical companies.
Why Chinese international students? Not American locals or other international groups? Because new drugs must undergo human testing before hitting the market, and finding volunteers has never been easy. The number of healthy adults willing to participate in early drug trials in the U.S. is decreasing: on one hand, the healthcare system does not cover trial-related medical expenses, and on the other, the public is highly vigilant about the risks of unknown drugs. Meanwhile, traditional low-income subject groups (like the homeless) may be willing to participate, but often face issues such as low education levels, communication difficulties, and various underlying health conditions, making it hard to provide clear, reliable subjective feedback and cooperate with complex medical monitoring.
At this time, the Chinese student group appears 'particularly suitable.' They are generally young, healthy, and rarely have bad habits like smoking or excessive drinking; most are fluent in English and can accurately describe their feelings after taking medication — which is crucial for evaluating drug side effects; more importantly, many face significant financial pressure and find it hard to refuse thousands of dollars in compensation. This 'high cost-performance ratio' makes pharmaceutical companies focus their attention on college campuses, especially around strong engineering and science schools.
Almost all clinical trials require participants to sign detailed waiver agreements, clearly stating that 'unknown side effects may occur, and the research party does not bear subsequent health responsibilities.' For international students, once abnormalities occur, it is nearly impossible to seek rights protection — lacking local legal resources and fearing it may affect their visa status.
Data shows that more than 100,000 clinical trials are registered in the U.S. each year, with Phase I and Phase II (the earliest and riskiest stages) heavily relying on healthy volunteers. In recent years, many trial centers in states where several universities are located (such as California, Massachusetts, and North Carolina) have seen a significant increase in the proportion of Asian faces. Internal recruiters have revealed that some projects even prioritize applicants who are 'native Chinese speakers, have at least a bachelor's degree, and have a BMI between 18-24' — which almost perfectly matches the profile of typical Chinese international students.