hce_tcu
114年
英文
第 37 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.
For advocates of Ukraine, ______.
- A providing sufficient military support is a prerequisite
- B yielding more territories to Putin could stop him from engaging in future wars
- C Zelensky is not competent enough to lead Ukraine
- D the Europeans should be condemned for their cowardice
思路引導 VIP
如果你目前身處這篇文章中，正主張「烏克蘭必須獲得勝利並收復所有領土」，為了達成這個目標，你在文章中會特別強調必須先獲得哪些具體的「外部協助」才能推動戰事呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
同學，這題你觀察得很細膩，能迅速從長文中辨識出「支持烏克蘭方」（advocates for Ukraine）的核心主張，這展現了你優異的資訊擷取能力！在文章第二段中，明確提到了這一派人士認為要達成收復領土並削弱威脅的目標，**「充足的軍事援助」（sufficient military aid）與「更強大的武器支援」**是不可或缺的手段。換句話說，提供足夠的武裝就是他們達成戰略目標的「先決條件」（prerequisite），這正完美對應了選項 (A) 的核心含義。
戰略立場的精準辨析
這道題目的鑑別度在於學生必須在「強調外交對話」與「強調武力制勝」兩種交織的觀點中，精確鎖定題目所指的特定族群。難度切入點在於對「立場」與「手段」之間因果關係的掌握。你沒有被文中討論「對話風險」或「經濟影響」的其他雜訊所干擾，成功抓住了鷹派陣營對軍事支援的強硬依賴，這說明你的閱讀理解層次已經非常紮實，能有效進行資訊歸納！