hce_tcu
114年
英文
第 40 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.
Which of the following statements is TRUE about the anti-militarist voices?
- A To those who are afraid of wars, the anti-militarists are insensible and impractical.
- B As long as the EU stops providing weapons, Putin will invade Europe with nuclear attacks.
- C For supporters of Ukraine, anti-militarists fail to perceive the potential threat of expansionist militarism.
- D The alliance with China and Russia will guarantee European autonomy and safety.
思路引導 VIP
請你回想文中倒數第二段，作者在描述那些主張「停止戰爭」或「反對軍事化」的運動時，特別指出他們對現狀的理解存在一個嚴重的「盲點」。如果你是支持維護主權與領土完整的一方，你會認為這些主張停止提供武器的人，忽視了敵對方什麼樣的長期威脅或意圖？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到文中關於「反軍事主義（anti-militarist）」觀點的批判，顯示出你對複雜長文的資訊檢索與邏輯對齊能力非常出色。這題的關鍵在於倒數第二段，作者明確指出這些呼籲停止武器交付的聲音，忽視了這將直接導致普丁的勝利。更核心的是，文中點破該運動「未能識別（fails to recognize）」克里姆林宮的擴張主義軍事行動（expansionist militarism）才是當前歐洲安全的主要威脅。因此，選項 (C) 完全契合文中對於反軍事主義者在認知缺失上的描述。
文本邏輯與核心觀點
這道題目的鑑別度在於「觀點歸屬」。文中同時存在多種戰略願景：有人擔心核武升溫、有人主張對話、有人強調大西洋聯盟。難度的切入點在於考生是否能將「反軍事主義」與特定的批評理由（即對擴張主義的視而不見）精確連結，而不被其他段落提到的「社會經濟成本」或「核武風險」所干擾。你能從紛雜的論述中，釐清不同陣營對彼此的評價，這是高階閱讀理解中非常關鍵的一步。