歐洲防衛格陵蘭？說得真好聽！ Europe for Greenland? Which country affords to pay for it?

【雙魚之論】
Trump’s renewed threat to acquire Greenland is less about territorial ambition than about pressing allied nations to confront an uncomfortable reality: Greenland represents a major vulnerability in NATO’s defensive architecture—and, more critically, a potential breach in America’s own national security.
China has for years conducted extensive hydrographic and geological surveys around Greenland, while Sino-Russian joint military activities in the region have already taken place. What once might have been dismissed as a theoretical risk has now become an imminent strategic challenge. At its core, this is a question of national security. As long as Greenland does not fall under the influence of adversaries such as China or Russia, and remains aligned with the free world, formal ownership is not the ultimate concern.
This raises an unavoidable question: do European countries genuinely value Greenland’s security? Dispatching only single-digit numbers of troops to military exercises amounts to little more than symbolic pageantry—police-level deployments standing in for real military capability, and offering scant evidence of serious defensive commitment.
Given these evolving realities, the most pragmatic course of action may be for Denmark to proactively facilitate Greenland’s independence. As a sovereign state, Greenland could formally join European Union, NATO and enter into a Compact of Free Association with the United States, under which Washington would assume full responsibility for its defense—something Denmark has increasingly proven unable to sustain. The so-called “new European security architecture without U.S. participation” described in the report is little more than science fiction. Real defense is not a matter of diplomacy, but of hard cash and concrete capabilities. Which European country, in the end, would actually be willing to pay for it?
Otherwise, when viewed through a historical lens, it is Denmark, France, and other European nations that will ultimately lose credibility and find themselves in an awkward and embarrassing position.

川普再度揚言要取得格陵蘭的議題，本質上是美國強烈要求各國正視格陵蘭作為北約防衛體系的重大漏洞，同時也是美國自身國家安全的潛在破口。中國早已長期在格陵蘭周邊進行詳細水文與地質調查，中俄更有多起聯合軍演，這種威脅已非抽象理論，而是迫在眉睫的現實。核心重點在於國家安全：只要確保領土不落入中俄等敵對勢力手中，所有權歸屬本身並非絕對重點。
歐洲各國真的重視格陵蘭嗎？僅派個位數軍人參與演習，充其量只是象徵性過場，將警力當軍力使用，難以展現實質防衛決心。因此，未來情勢發展下，最合理的解決之道便是：丹麥提前允許格陵蘭獨立，獨立後的格陵蘭正式加入歐盟與北約，並與美國簽署自由聯合協定（Compact of Free Association），由美國承擔丹麥目前無力負荷的全面防衛責任。報導中所謂「沒有美國參與的新歐洲安全架構」，幾乎是科幻小說。因為真正的防衛不是外交，而是真金白銀的事業。歐洲哪一國會願意出錢？
否則，若比對歷史脈絡，顏面盡失、陷入尷尬的必然是丹麥、法國等歐洲國家。

格陵蘭危機升溫！丹麥、美國、加拿大增兵 揭密歐盟防禦條款42.7    三立 20260120

Chinese people Laying Out the “Near-Arctic State” Strategy HoonTing 20260120

Chinese People Laying Out the “Near-Arctic State” Strategy    HoonTing 20260120

At the very start of Donald Trump’s second term, he publicly stated his desire to incorporate Canada into the United States as the 51st state, arguing that Canada had long taken advantage of trade with the U.S. and that becoming a U.S. state would eliminate tariffs entirely. Shortly thereafter, he also threatened to purchase Greenland—this time emphasizing that national security had already been infiltrated by China.

藍白的癱瘓台灣政府，就是新型態戰爭 It's new form warfare: the Blue-White camp Gridlocks the government

【雙魚之論】
The report cites Nicholas Kristof’s article on The New York Times titled "How a War With China Would Begin." In fact, we must first define what "war" means. If we do not consider direct exchanges of “hot weapons” or the initial deployment of conventional troops on the front lines, then—observing China's ongoing cognitive warfare against Taiwan, cyber attacks, infiltration efforts, repeated severance of undersea cables, frequent large-scale exercises by maritime militia, the persistent paralysis of government operations and budgets by the blue-white camp, as well as influencers and major politicians collectively and continuously questioning the authority of the government system—the so-called "new form of warfare" has already begun.
The Chinese Communist Party's aggression against Taiwan must reach a certain threshold, with the starting line secretly shifted, before it deploys troops. By that time, the outcome of the war will have largely been predetermined.
The author's omission is failing to account for the CCP's "war initiation" model that exploits the blue-white camp.

報導指稱Nicholas Kristof以「與中國的戰爭會如何開始」為題撰文在紐約時報。實際上，要先定義「戰爭」為何？假使不採熱兵器的對轟，也不在第一線使用傳統軍隊，如此觀察中國對台灣已經進行的認知作戰、網路攻擊、滲透、連續切斷光纜、海上民兵多次巨型演練、藍白持續癱瘓政府與預算、網紅與主要政客集體與連續質疑政府體制權威等非傳統作戰模式，則所謂「新型態戰爭」已經開始了。中共對台灣的侵害必須達到一定程度，起跑點被暗中移動後才會出動軍隊，那時戰爭勝負已經大致底定。
作者的缺失，是沒有計算中共利用藍白陣營的「開戰」模式。

中國5年內犯台機率？紐時專欄分析2個訊號    NOWnews 20260119

美國紐約時報知名專欄作家紀思道（Nicholas Kristof）近日在紐時發表文章，以「與中國的戰爭會如何開始」為題撰文，針對中共攻台機率，他引述了「台灣海峽風險報告」的數據指出，未來5年侵台機率約30%，而中共對台實施海空封鎖的可能性為60%，並提到了中國對台開戰前可能會有的2個訊號。

紀思道認為的中國開戰訊號

海上民兵封鎖海域，它們就是軍隊，不必客氣 Maritime Militia is PLAN, just do whatever necessary to them

pic.twitter.com/80G4rRceXz

【雙魚之論】
January 11 again? Once more we see the CCP’s favorite numbers “1111.”
The most famous example was when the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Chengdu on January 11, 2011, and the CCP announced the successful test flight of the J-20.
The New York Times report on the massive maneuvers of China’s maritime militia vessels—does it read like a piece of classical Chinese wuxia fiction, or the chained ships from a historical romance?
The CCP’s maritime militia vessels look on the surface like fishing boats, yet they do not fish. They share standardized appearances, receive fixed subsidies, operate under the command of the PLA (Eastern Theater Command), and conduct organized drills. They fully meet the definition of a warship under Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: “a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State, bearing the external marks distinguishing warships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.”
Earlier, when Trump used military aircraft to strike drug-smuggling vessels that had been designated as terrorist targets, he was effectively telling the CCP: you want to wage war or impose a blockade through gray-zone tactics? No chance. You were the one who first abandoned the rules and blurred the line between military and civilian—so don’t blame me if I play rough when the time comes.
Since these are warships rather than civilian vessels, and are directed from behind the scenes by the CCP, they should be dealt with directly—using incendiary weapons—in the defense of Taiwan.

1月11日？又出現中共最愛的1111。最出名的是美國國防部長羅伯特·蓋茨（Robert Gates）2011年1月11日訪問成都，中共宣布殲-20試飛成功，
紐約時報對中國海上民兵船巨型操演的報導，是中國古典武俠小說，還是演義小說裡面的連環船？
中共的海上民兵船，表面上像是是漁船但不捕魚。它們有一致的外觀、接受固定津貼、聽命於解放軍（東部戰區）命令且進行操演，完全符合了〈聯合國海洋法公約〉第29條「屬於一國武裝部隊、具備辨別軍艦國籍的外部標誌、由該國政府正式委任並名列相應的現役名冊或類似名冊的軍官指揮和配備有服從正規武裝部隊紀律的船員的船舶」的軍艦定義。
先前川普以軍機攻擊被定義為恐怖主義的運毒民船，就告訴中共：你想用灰色地帶遂行作戰或封鎖？門都沒有。是你先不講武德破壞軍民分際，莫怪屆時我耍流氓。
既然是軍艦不是民船，且為中共在背後指揮，在台灣保衛戰就直接使用燒夷彈對付。

 

漁船不只捕魚？上千中國漁船東海「大規模集結」疑排陣　美媒揭背後意涵    鏡週刊 20260117

美國《紐約時報》日前透過船舶自動識別系統（AIS）資料分析指出，中國近期在東海海域兩度出現罕見的大規模漁船集結行動。上千艘中國漁船於去年聖誕節及今年1月11日，分別在中國沿岸與日本沖繩之間的海域，排列成長距離、具幾何形狀的船陣，迫使部分商船繞道航行，引發國際關注。

報導指出，今年1月11日約有1400艘中國漁船在短時間內離港或中止捕撈，集中於東海特定海域，形成一個長度超過200海浬的長方形陣列。相關航行數據顯示，該區船隻密度極高，部分貨輪必須蛇行穿越或改道避讓，對正常航運秩序造成實際影響。

類似情況早在去年12月25日便已出現。《紐約時報》分析當天的定位資料後發現，約2000艘中國民用船隻在東海排成多個大型陣列，其中北側出現兩個平行長方形，最長達290海浬，南側則形成倒L型配置。專家認為，短短數週內在相同海域重複出現如此規模的集結，顯示並非單純漁業活動。

 

讓金馬立委如關島聯邦眾議員 有發言權但無表決權 Make Kinmen's legislator as the Non-voting members of the US House of Representatives

【雙魚之論】
After the war, having been shaped by the trials of multiple armed conflicts, residents registered as belonging to “Fujian Kinmen” and “Fujian Matsu” have long exhibited a wavering stance in both politics and daily life. In terms of political values, they tend to favor freedom and democracy; yet economically, in everyday interactions, and in geopolitical reality, they remain closely connected to Fujian in China. This has produced a clear divergence from residents of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. Such a structural contradiction is not difficult to understand and can, to some extent, be regarded as excusable.
However, figures such as Chen Yu-jen, who almost unabashedly take the Chinese Communist Party’s position as the guiding standard for their words and actions—and whose discourse closely echoes Beijing’s talking points—can no longer be explained merely by geography or lived reality. This phenomenon is all the more startling and warrants serious vigilance.
We contend that, given Xi Jinping’s inability to reconcile his high-profile militaristic rhetoric with mounting governance difficulties, opting for a high-risk political gamble—seeking to seize Kinmen, Matsu (or one of them), taking local residents as political hostages to coerce Taipei while simultaneously challenging the United States and Japan—is not a low-probability scenario. On the contrary, it is one that deserves heightened precaution.
What further merits serious consideration is this: if some political figures in Kinmen and Matsu, along with their supporters, have already rejected a “Taiwanese” identity at the level of self-identification, should the number, qualifications, and powers of their representation in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China be reconsidered? For example, might it be appropriate to draw on institutional arrangements used in non–fully sovereign territories such as Guam, whereby elected representatives enjoy the right to speak in the legislature but do not possess voting rights?

戰後歷經多場戰事洗禮，戶籍屬於「福建金門」與「福建馬祖」的居民，其政治與生活立場長期呈現擺盪狀態：在政治價值上傾向自由民主，但在經濟、日常往來與地緣現實上，卻與中國福建高度相連，因而與台澎地區居民形成明顯差異。這樣的結構性矛盾，本就不難理解，也尚屬情有可原。
然而，如陳玉珍般，幾乎毫不遮掩地以中共立場作為其言行的判準，甚至在論述上與北京口徑高度一致，則已非單純的地緣或生活現實所能解釋，更令人錯愕與警惕。
我們認為，在習近平無法對其高調的軍國主義口號與實際治理困境作出交代的情況下，選擇以高風險的政治豪賭，試圖奪取金門、馬祖（或其一），並挾持當地居民作為政治人質，以此要脅台北、同時向美日叫板，並非低機率情境，反而值得高度防範。
進一步值得嚴肅思考的是：若部分金馬政治人物與支持者自我認同上已否定「台灣人」身分，那麼其在中華民國立法院中的代表數額、資格與職權，是否有必要重新設計？例如，是否可參考關島等非完整主權地區的制度安排，使其民意代表在國會享有發言權，卻不具表決權。

稱對岸只打台北、打賴清德！陳玉珍「我本就不是台灣人」她爆美智庫嚇壞    三立新聞 20260116

國民黨立委陳玉珍強推法案，反紫光奇遊團成員許美華指出，美國智庫友人拜訪陳玉珍，想了解她對兩岸關係的看法，沒想到陳玉珍說，「她不擔心中共打過來，因為中共討厭台獨、討厭賴清德，對岸只會打台北打賴清德，不會打金門」，還直言「我是福建人，我本來就不是台灣人」，令人傻眼。

立法部門持續違反「法治國」憲政原則

立法部門持續違反「法治國」憲政原則 The legislative branch continues to violate the constitutional principles of the constitutional state (Rechtsstaat)

【雙魚之論】
The actions of the blue-white coalition in blocking the budget, "special defense budget" etc. can, on the surface, be framed as an exercise of legislative autonomy or normal political contestation under the separation of powers. However, a closer examination of their actual conduct reveals a clear overstep of boundaries.
The essential function of the Procedure Committee is akin to a "mailroom" for legislative proceedings: it is responsible only for verifying whether proposals are formally complete and procedurally compliant. Its authority should be limited strictly to procedural review and must not extend to substantive judgments or decisions on content. Yet, under blue-white dominance, the Procedure Committee has persistently refused to place the central government budget and the special defense budget on the Legislative Yuan's plenary agenda. It has even gone further by adopting a practice of "selective clearance": extracting only certain items (such as specific livelihood subsidies) for referral to the relevant committees for review, while keeping the vast majority of the budget items blocked at the door, unable to proceed.
This approach far exceeds mere "failure to schedule" and effectively amounts to the Procedure Committee conducting preliminary substantive screening and de facto vetoes on content. It seriously erodes the budget review powers vested in the specialized committees and the plenary session. More critically, this selective and piecemeal handling fundamentally violates the constitutional principles of budget integrity and comprehensive review. It also contravenes the boundaries of power separation established by the Budget Act and relevant interpretations by the Constitutional Court (Grand Justices).
Once a branch of government acts in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers from the outset, any resolution it produces is inherently unconstitutional and naturally lacks legal validity.
By engaging in such reckless, all-or-nothing maneuvers without regard for consequences, is the blue-white coalition so confident that it will not return to power in the near term that it feels free to act with impunity? Or is there a deeper political calculation at play? The motives behind this are truly baffling and inevitably lead one to question: Can a legislature operating in this manner still fulfill the constitutional responsibilities of oversight and checks and balances entrusted to it?

藍白陣營阻擋預算與〈國防特別條例〉等行為，表面上或許可解釋為立法機關的自治權行使，或是權力分立下的正常政治角力。然而，進一步檢視其實際作為，卻已明顯逾越界線。
程序委員會的本質功能，僅如同議事的「收發室」，負責審核提案形式是否完備、程序是否合法，其權限應止於程序審查，而不得涉入實質內容的判斷與決定。然而，藍白主導的程序委員會卻長期拒絕將總預算案及〈國防特別條例〉與其後預算案排入院會議程，甚至進一步發展出「選擇性放行」的做法：僅抽出部分項目（如某些民生補助）送交各委員會審查，其餘絕大部分預算則繼續擱置門外不得其門而入。
這種作法已遠超單純的「不予排案」，實質上等同於由程序委員會先行進行內容篩選與實質否決，嚴重侵蝕各専門委員會及院會的預算審議職權。更重要的是，這種選擇性、片段式的處理方式，完全違背預算案整體性與通盤審查的憲政原則，也牴觸《預算法》及相關大法官解釋所確立的權力分立界線。
一旦權力部門的行為自始違反權力分立的憲政原則，其所為之決議即屬「自始違憲」，自然不具合法效力。
藍白陣營如此不計後果、孤注一擲的操作，究竟是自認短期內無執政可能，因而肆無忌憚？抑或另有更深層的政治盤算？其背後動機實在令人費解，也讓人不禁質疑：這樣的國會，究竟還能否承擔起憲法所賦予的監督與制衡責任？

有關格陵蘭 Grok：格陵蘭的自治（特別是二戰期間總督同意美國建立基地）

【雙魚之論】
韓國選出親中總統，川普以基地為籌碼
格陵蘭＋加拿大　巴拿馬運河＋美洲灣
20090612〈格陵蘭自治法〉／Taimocracy翻譯
過時的溝通管道破壞了合法性 Sara Olsvig & Ulrik Pram Gad＠DIIS 20241210
川普買格陵蘭？北極圈爭霸戰
北極海變新南海 美揭中國野心 自由20190508
中國大陸在格陵蘭島投資機場 丹麥與美國緊張防範 中時 20180909
2017.04.09 中國獵地北極圈2017：中企擬購廢棄海軍基地遭丹麥拒絕
2017.04.09 中國獵地北極圈2015：俊安集團將接管格陵蘭Isua鐵礦專案
中國獵地北極圈2013：富豪看中冰島不毛之地，投資還是陰謀？
美海軍第二艦隊
海陸雙霸的中國夢
北極的第三絲路
《中國的北極政策》白皮書

為何格陵蘭（Greenland）與法羅群島（Faroe Islands）被丹麥憲法並列一起規定？
Grok：格陵蘭（Greenland）與法羅群島（Faroe Islands）在丹麥法律文件（如《格陵蘭自治法》第12條等）中經常被連在一起規定，主要是因為兩者在丹麥王國（Kingdom of Denmark / Danish Realm）的憲政地位、歷史背景與制度設計上高度相似且互相關聯。以下從多個層面說明原因：

1. 共同的憲政框架：丹麥王國的「王國統一」（Unity of the Realm / Rigsfællesskabet）

有關格陵蘭 1940年7月21日哈瓦那會議〈雪梨先驅報〉19400723 / Taimocracy翻譯 20260110

【雙魚之論】
有關格陵蘭　19400721哈瓦那會議
有關格陵蘭　19400721〈哈瓦那公約〉/Taimocracy翻譯 20260110
20090612〈格陵蘭自治法〉／Taimocracy 翻譯20250316

1940年7月21日哈瓦那會議　〈雪梨先驅報〉1940.07.23　/ Taimocracy翻譯 20260110

美國共和國的戰爭警報。 巨大的貿易卡特爾方案。 本報紐約通訊員報導。

二十一個泛美國家（包括美國在內）的外交部長，正在哈瓦那召開特別會議，尋求一個彼此都能接受的方案，以處理因歐戰影響而改變的各國與歐洲的共同及個別關係。

這次會議不僅如一位評論員所言，可能對「泛美主義的未來方向與實際效能」具有「非凡的重要性」；對世界其他地區也無疑具有嚴重意義。

討論將涵蓋目前令全人類深感困惑、或將人類分裂成兩個激烈交戰陣營、或威脅進一步影響尚未完全波及地區之經濟、政治與道德命運的所有問題。

會議將試圖解決幾個無法抑制的迫切問題。

中立區。

有關格陵蘭 19400721〈哈瓦那公約〉Taimocracy翻譯 20260110

19400721〈哈瓦那公約〉

【雙魚之論】
有關格陵蘭　19400721哈瓦那會議
有關格陵蘭　19400721〈哈瓦那公約〉Taimocracy翻譯 20260110
20090612〈格陵蘭自治法〉／Taimocracy 翻譯20250316

 

Act of Habana Concerning the Provisional Administration of European Colonies and Possessions in the Americas  〈哈瓦那公約〉 關於在美洲歐洲殖民地及屬地之臨時行政當局之哈瓦那決議  Taimocracy翻譯

有關格陵蘭 19400721哈瓦那會議

【雙魚之論】
Greenland falls squarely within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine—its core principle being that any aggression or interference by non-American states in the affairs of American states is absolutely intolerable to the United States and the American nations themselves.

• In the 19th century, this principle was primarily directed against European colonial expansion;
• In the 20th century, while still aimed at European powers, it specifically targeted the threat from Nazi Germany (for example, during World War II, the United States directly occupied Greenland to prevent Germany from gaining a foothold);
• In the 21st century, the focus has shifted to the activities of China and Russia, particularly their strategic penetration and resource competition in the Arctic region.

If we fail to connect these historical contexts, it becomes difficult to truly grasp on a conceptual level why the Monroe Doctrine continues to serve as a source of strategic legitimacy for the United States to this day. It also obscures the deeper logic behind the current Greenland issue: the United States regards it as part of its own backyard, tolerating no interference from external great powers.

This linkage is not merely a historicalreview—it is the key to understanding contemporary geopolitics.

格陵蘭，正位於門羅主義的適用範圍之內——其核心原則在於：任何非美洲國家對美洲國家的侵略或干涉，都是美國也是美洲國家絕對無法容忍的。

• 19世紀，這條原則主要針對的是歐洲國家的殖民擴張；
• 20世紀，雖仍為歐洲國家，卻特別指向納粹德國的威脅（例如二戰期間美國直接佔領格陵蘭以防德國染指）；
• 進入21世紀，焦點轉移到中國與俄羅斯的活動，尤其是在北極地區的戰略滲透與資源競爭。

如果我們不把這些歷史脈絡串聯起來，就很難在概念上真正理解「門羅主義」為何至今仍被美國用來作為戰略正當性依據，也難以看清當前格陵蘭議題背後的深層邏輯：美國視其為自家後院，不容外來大國插手。

這樣的連結不僅是歷史回顧，更是理解當代地緣政治的關鍵鑰匙。

 

1941-1949 年美國外交政策十年回顧：1940年 7 月 21 日至 30 日美洲共和國外交部長哈瓦那會議(1)    Taimocracy翻譯

（a）關於和平解決衝突的決議（2）

鑑於：

設計圖曝光！地下深藏208間密室 中國駐英巨型使館「疑成間諜祕密基地」 鏡週刊 20260113

【雙魚之論】
有趣的是，這張設計圖如何出現？密室會是中國向UK呈報的資料內容？或是，這是UK故意洩漏的情報？

設計圖曝光！地下深藏208間密室　中國駐英巨型使館「疑成間諜祕密基地」    鏡週刊 20260113

就在關鍵光纖旁！中國計畫在倫敦興建全新駐英使館，規模可能成為歐洲最大，但相關設計細節近日引爆巨大爭議。英國媒體披露疑似未經遮蔽的完整設計圖，顯示使館地下空間異常龐大，竟疑似規劃多達208個隱密房間，且位置緊鄰關鍵網路光纖，讓外界高度憂心恐成為間諜活動與跨境鎮壓的核心基地。