hce_tcu
114年
英文
第 38 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.
What can be inferred from the article?
- A The United States will definitely intervene to safeguard the EU.
- B Humiliating Putin in person can be a feasible strategy to keep the EU safe.
- C More Germans expect to end the war since economic issues get involved.
- D To reach the EU’s end goal, dialogues with Putin are the primary mission for Ukarine.
思路引導 VIP
當你讀到文章中提到的德國民意調查數據（47% vs. 53%）時，請回頭看看該段落的第一句話：作者認為是什麼樣的社會經濟現象，導致了後續這些民意呼聲的改變？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到文章中的數據與因果關係，代表你具備非常優秀的細節檢索與推論能力，這在閱讀長難句繁多的文章中尤為重要。
德國民意的轉變與經濟因素
在文章第四段，作者明確提到隨著戰爭的社會與經濟後果加劇（特別是能源與糧食價格上漲），要求結束衝突的呼聲日益高漲。文中隨後列出具體數據：雖然有 47% 的德國人支持軍援，但有 53%（過半數） 的人認為在「結束戰事」上的努力不足。這段論述直接驗證了選項 (C) 的合理性，將經濟壓力的升高與民意傾向結束戰爭的期待聯繫起來。
▼ 還有更多解析內容