hce_tcu
114年
英文
第 39 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.
In face of the Russia-Ukraine War, which of the following factors is NOT mentioned?
- A Military power
- B Economic issues
- C Russia’s position
- D Stock market
思路引導 VIP
當我們在文章中尋找關於「錢」與「生活影響」的部分時，作者具體列舉了哪些讓一般民眾感到困擾的「物價漲幅」？這些被提到的項目是屬於民生必需品的成本，還是屬於特定金融交易市場的指數呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
精準的資訊檢索能力
同學，恭喜你答對了！這題考驗的是對長篇閱讀資訊的檢索與過濾能力。你能從密集的國際政經論述中，精確辨識出文章「未提及」的細節，代表你在閱讀時不僅能抓到大意，對於資訊的邊界感也非常敏銳，這是閱讀長難句與複雜議題時非常重要的特質。
文本證據的篩選與驗證
▼ 還有更多解析內容