hce_tcu
114年
英文
第 36 題
📖 題組：
One year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a growing strategic divide has emerged within the European Union. On one side are those advocating for a decisive Ukrainian victory, pushing for the provision of stronger weapons to reclaim lost territory. On the other side, there are voices emphasizing the importance of Russia’s role within Europe’s security framework, suggesting that the EU’s broader strategic vision and interests must extend beyond the ongoing war. In Europe, the debate veers between two diverging strategic visions. Those advocating for a clear Ukrainian victory argue that sufficient military aid is needed to recapture the territory lost over the past year, and even to reclaim Donbas and Crimea. To achieve this, Ukrainian armed forces would require stronger support, potentially including advanced weapons and fighter jets, to push Russian forces back. Humiliating Russia would leave a weakened Kremlin, preventing it from becoming a persistent threat to EU and NATO members. Nonetheless, this strategic vision, widely held in central and eastern European and Baltic states, is not without risks, including the war escalating to the point of a cornered Putin resorting to nuclear weapons and blind support for the Atlanticist position of European security. The 2024 US presidential elections, the Republican Party’s growing isolationism, and the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act all raise fears of diminishing European influence in the transatlantic alliance and the world. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the Russia factor must always be taken into consideration. While the United States can turn its back on Russia, Moscow’s influence in Europe will not disappear. It is thus necessary to look beyond the war in order to define Europe’s strategic vision and interests. Also, to be realistic with the support to Ukraine, whether in terms of the extent of military aid or the possibilities of an Early EU accession, is important. As the social and economic consequences of the war intensify—manifesting in rising energy and food prices—calls for a stronger emphasis on ending the conflict also grow louder. While 47% of Germans are supportive of providing weapons to Ukraine, 53% feel that not enough is being done to bring the fighting to a close. However, the risks associated with the strategic vision that emphasizes European stability through dialogue with Russia are significant. Severing unity with Washington would mean distancing Europe from the primary guarantor of its security, while also strengthening the revisionist narratives of both Russia and China at a time when the divide between the West and the rest of the world is widening. Both the situation on the ground in Ukraine and the growing strategic divergence in Europe have led anti-militarist voices to argue that weapons deliveries to Ukraine should be stopped, an argument ignoring the fact that this would mean victory for Putin. In a war of aggression, it is impossible for the attacked to give up their rights to self-defense, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. The re-emerged “stop the war” movement fails to recognize that the Kremlin’s expansionist militarism is the main threat to the security of many Europeans today. Europe’s security must necessarily extend beyond the military, but after decades of outsourcing such concerns to the United States, since February 24th, 2022, defense has become paramount once again. The EU not only needs to spend more on defense but also spends better and more jointly. The discussion in Europe must, therefore, return to the goals of strategic autonomy and the EU’s interests after the war. Until it does, the focus of the discussion must move beyond the subject of dialogue, or otherwise, with Putin, it should seek to lay the foundations of an international coalition that works for tomorrow’s global and European security frameworks.
One year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a growing strategic divide has emerged within the European Union. On one side are those advocating for a decisive Ukrainian victory, pushing for the provision of stronger weapons to reclaim lost territory. On the other side, there are voices emphasizing the importance of Russia’s role within Europe’s security framework, suggesting that the EU’s broader strategic vision and interests must extend beyond the ongoing war. In Europe, the debate veers between two diverging strategic visions. Those advocating for a clear Ukrainian victory argue that sufficient military aid is needed to recapture the territory lost over the past year, and even to reclaim Donbas and Crimea. To achieve this, Ukrainian armed forces would require stronger support, potentially including advanced weapons and fighter jets, to push Russian forces back. Humiliating Russia would leave a weakened Kremlin, preventing it from becoming a persistent threat to EU and NATO members. Nonetheless, this strategic vision, widely held in central and eastern European and Baltic states, is not without risks, including the war escalating to the point of a cornered Putin resorting to nuclear weapons and blind support for the Atlanticist position of European security. The 2024 US presidential elections, the Republican Party’s growing isolationism, and the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act all raise fears of diminishing European influence in the transatlantic alliance and the world. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the Russia factor must always be taken into consideration. While the United States can turn its back on Russia, Moscow’s influence in Europe will not disappear. It is thus necessary to look beyond the war in order to define Europe’s strategic vision and interests. Also, to be realistic with the support to Ukraine, whether in terms of the extent of military aid or the possibilities of an Early EU accession, is important. As the social and economic consequences of the war intensify—manifesting in rising energy and food prices—calls for a stronger emphasis on ending the conflict also grow louder. While 47% of Germans are supportive of providing weapons to Ukraine, 53% feel that not enough is being done to bring the fighting to a close. However, the risks associated with the strategic vision that emphasizes European stability through dialogue with Russia are significant. Severing unity with Washington would mean distancing Europe from the primary guarantor of its security, while also strengthening the revisionist narratives of both Russia and China at a time when the divide between the West and the rest of the world is widening. Both the situation on the ground in Ukraine and the growing strategic divergence in Europe have led anti-militarist voices to argue that weapons deliveries to Ukraine should be stopped, an argument ignoring the fact that this would mean victory for Putin. In a war of aggression, it is impossible for the attacked to give up their rights to self-defense, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. The re-emerged “stop the war” movement fails to recognize that the Kremlin’s expansionist militarism is the main threat to the security of many Europeans today. Europe’s security must necessarily extend beyond the military, but after decades of outsourcing such concerns to the United States, since February 24th, 2022, defense has become paramount once again. The EU not only needs to spend more on defense but also spends better and more jointly. The discussion in Europe must, therefore, return to the goals of strategic autonomy and the EU’s interests after the war. Until it does, the focus of the discussion must move beyond the subject of dialogue, or otherwise, with Putin, it should seek to lay the foundations of an international coalition that works for tomorrow’s global and European security frameworks.
The purpose of this article is ______.
- A to persuade EU members to fight against Russia in unison
- B to present balanced views of EU strategies
- C to condemn Russia’s intrusion into Ukraine
- D to seek international coalition with the United States
思路引導 VIP
請你觀察一下這篇文章的結構：作者在第一段提到「分歧」（divide）之後，接下來的段落中，每當介紹完一種觀點，作者是否會接著討論該觀點的「缺點」或「風險」？如果作者對每一種說法都採取了「優點與風險並陳」的方式，你認為他這篇文章的主要目的，是為了「推銷其中一方」，還是為了「整理目前的爭議全貌」呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精確地抓住了這篇文章的核心架構！這道題目考驗的是對全文主旨與作者寫作意圖的判讀，而你準確選擇了 (B)，代表你具備優異的長文資訊整合能力。
文章架構的平衡性
這篇文章的寫作方式是非常典型的「對照分析」。從首段開宗明義提到的「策略分歧」（strategic divide）開始，作者便有系統地並陳了兩大願景：一派主張透過強力軍援確保烏克蘭取得決定性勝利，另一派則強調必須考量俄羅斯在歐洲安全架構中的長期角色。值得注意的是，作者在介紹每一種觀點後，都會緊接著分析該立場的潛在風險（risks），這種不偏不倚的寫法，證明了其目的在於呈現歐盟內部的辯論現狀，而非說服讀者採納特定立場。
▼ 還有更多解析內容