
特朗普北约峰会发难:重提吞并格陵兰、威胁对西班牙断贸,盟友裂痕加深
在安卡拉峰会上,美国总统指责盟友在伊朗和防务问题上支持不足,丹麦与西班牙明确回绝,北约内部团结再受考验。
7月8日,在土耳其安卡拉举行的北约峰会上,美国总统特朗普公开表达对北约的“极度不满”,再次要求将丹麦自治领土格陵兰置于美国控制之下,并指示财政部长切断与西班牙的全部贸易。这些言论瞬间打乱了欧洲盟友原本希望展示团结与增加防务开支的议程,使跨大西洋联盟的裂痕暴露无遗。特朗普在与北约秘书长吕特会面时称,格陵兰对美国“保护世界”至关重要,但对丹麦“并不重要”,并指责盟国未能在对伊朗的军事行动中提供足够支持,宣布“对我来说,停火已经结束”。
面对美方施压,丹麦与格陵兰自治政府立场一致且强硬。丹麦首相弗雷泽里克森重申“格陵兰不出售”,强调丹麦期待盟友尊重其主权。格陵兰外交部长埃格德则在社交媒体上表示,格陵兰的未来“只由格陵兰人民决定”。北约秘书长吕特一方面承认特朗普对北极安全形势的担忧“完全正确”,另一方面强调相关议题应通过北约与丹麦、格陵兰的既有机制共同处理,而非单边行动。西班牙政府对特朗普的断贸威胁反应平静,称双边关系互利,无意改变,但卫生大臣加西亚在社交媒体上直言“将外交与霸凌混为一谈才是糟糕的”。
特朗普的言论再次将北极地缘竞争推至前台。他声称格陵兰周边“遍布中国和俄罗斯船只”,但这一说法此前已被军事专家否认。然而,其表态反映出华盛顿政策圈层将北极视为对华战略竞争关键区域的焦虑。格陵兰岛地处北美与欧洲之间,扼守北大西洋航道,且富含稀土和油气资源。随着冰层融化,新航道的开通潜力使该岛的战略价值持续上升。中国近年来通过“冰上丝绸之路”加强在北极的科研与投资存在,被美国部分战略界人士解读为挑战。特朗普政府以安全为由寻求扩大在格陵兰的军事部署,可能进一步压缩中国参与北极治理的空间,并加剧该地区的军事化趋势。
此次峰会本欲以欧洲防务开支大幅增长来安抚华盛顿。北约数据显示,2026年欧洲核心防务支出同比增加11%,达6340亿美元,且多国在会前公布了数百亿美元的新军购合同。但特朗普对西班牙的贸易威胁,以及他关于可能从欧洲撤出全部美军的警告,令这些努力大打折扣。在伊朗问题上,欧洲多国拒绝为美军提供领空和基地,导致美欧关系持续紧张。目前,美国、丹麦与格陵兰三方工作组仍在就未来安全安排进行磋商,丹麦外交大臣预计年内有望达成解决方案。特朗普与乌克兰总统泽连斯基的会晤,以及美方对欧洲驻军的“重新审查”,将成为观察北约未来走向的下一步焦点。
| 大西洋/英语圈媒体 | −0.60 | critical |
|---|---|---|
| 俄罗斯及独联体媒体 | 0.00 | neutral |
| 拉丁美洲媒体 | −0.80 | critical |
| 印度及南亚媒体 | 0.00 | neutral |
The Atlantic alliance warns that Trump's confrontational stance is fracturing NATO and endangering collective security.
By cataloguing Trump's grievances against Spain, Denmark, and Iran, the narrative constructs a hierarchy of threats that portrays the US president as the primary source of instability within the alliance.
Russia observes Trump's complaints with detachment, noting that NATO's internal discord is a recurring pattern that does not threaten Moscow's interests.
By presenting Trump's criticisms as unremarkable and focusing on his specific grievances, the narrative normalises the conflict and downplays its potential to destabilise the alliance.
Latin America condemns Trump's arrogance and warns that his behaviour threatens global stability and the sovereignty of smaller nations.
By focusing on Trump's emotional state ('very angry') and using vivid language, the narrative personifies the United States as a belligerent actor, making his actions appear as a personal affront to the international order.
India views Trump's outburst as a matter of strategic calculation, noting the implications for regional security in West Asia and the Arctic.
By presenting the events as a series of factual statements and focusing on the Iran ceasefire and Greenland's strategic value, the narrative adopts an analytical tone that avoids moral judgment and emphasises realpolitik.