評論
打印
The RAND report assesses that “Russian ground forces have local dominance along its European and Central Asian borders.”
蘭德研究所的報告評估稱，“俄羅斯的地面部隊在歐洲及中亞邊境沿線占有主導地位?！?/div>
In many ways, Ukraine is a testing ground for the kind of fight that could ultimately break NATO.
從很多方面來看，烏克蘭都只是一個試驗場，俄羅斯的最終目的是要挑起戰爭分化北約。
Brian Nichiporuk, one of the report’s coauthors, raised the specter of what he called a “smash and grab” operation—
報告聯名作者布萊恩·尼克波瑞克聲稱，日后，俄羅斯可能還會展開“粉碎搶奪”行動——
where Russia launches a rapid invasion of, say, Estonia,
比如，迅速入侵愛沙尼亞，
immediately incorporates the invaded nation into its formidable defense perimeter,
立即將被入侵的愛沙尼亞納入其強大的防御體系，
and presents the invasion to the world as a virtual “fait accompli.”
并昭告天下所謂的入侵不過是“既成事實”。
Would the U.S. commit its forces to a brutal, bloody battle to liberate its NATO ally?
美國會為了其北約盟友的解放率兵加入一場殘酷而血腥的戰斗嗎？
Or would the likelihood of serious casualties—combined with the difficulty of the operation—
又或者，嚴重傷亡的可能性——加上行動的難度——
cause the public to demand that America abandon Estonia to its fate?
會促使民眾要求美國袖手旁觀，讓愛沙尼亞聽天由命嗎？
If so, could the NATO alliance survive intact after Russia demonstrated
若果真如此，要是俄羅斯已經用行動表明，在其實力和意志面前，強權也要為之折腰，
that the combination of its might and will could make a superpower yield?
北約聯盟還能毫發無損地渡過難關嗎？
These sound like esoteric, theoretical questions—far removed from the daily lives of the American public.
這些聽著仿佛都是些艱深的理論問題，仿佛與美國民眾的日常生活相去甚遠。
But these are exactly the kinds of strategic questions that Presidents and their advisers should ponder.
但它們卻是總統及總統顧問們需要考慮的那種戰略問題。
Here’s one way to phrase those interests — an effective Ukrainian defense against Russian aggression
我們可以這樣理解這些利害——烏克蘭對俄羅斯侵略的有效防御
raises the cost of that aggression and (crucially) raises the perceived cost of future aggression.
會提高俄方侵略的成本，也會無形之中提高俄方未來侵略的感知成本。
Ukraine needed lethal military aid, and Congress appropriated money to fund that aid.
烏克蘭需要軍事援助，美國國會也為此撥了款。
Now we know that there was a dissenter— the President of the United States.
眼下，我們已經知道，此事引起了某人的反對，這個人就是美國總統。
And he dissented not because he’d made a careful (though contentious) assessment of America’s best strategic interests,
但他之所以反對并非因為他對美國的最佳戰略利益做了仔細的(盡管大家對此的看法存在爭議)評估，
but rather because he was nursing various domestic American political grudges against the Bidens driven by unfounded conspiracy theories.
而是出于他對拜登家族懷有的，被莫須有的陰謀論挑起的種種政治怨念。
We need Commanders in Chief who are strategic in their thinking and motivated by the American national interest.
我們需要的統帥是具有戰略思維、服從美國國家利益的統帥。
Trump, by contrast, is ignorant, impulsive, vulnerable to conspiracy theories, and motivated by his own personal grievances and grudges.
相比之下，特朗普只是一個無知、沖動、動輒叫囂陰謀論，服從個人的不滿與怨念的統帥。
Eight months ago, I argued that an election, not an impeachment,
8個月前，我曾提出，要追究特朗普的罪責，
was the way to hold President Trump accountable for his misdeeds.
正確的途徑應該是選舉而非彈劾。
The Ukraine scandal changes the calculus.
然而，烏克蘭丑聞改變了這一格局。
It demonstrates that the President will inject his vices even into the most consequential decisions.
該丑聞表明，即便是最重大的決策也逃不出他荼毒國家政事的魔爪。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
