Donald Trump has given Vladimir Putin the immense prestige of a one-to-one meeting. But he has also raised tariffs on India for doing business with the same man. He ambushed Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February. But he hosted him again this week with some bonhomie. As for ending the war in Ukraine, he won’t give that violated nation a security guarantee of the kind that applies to Japan, the Philippines or indeed most of Europe. But he doesn’t rule out some kind of US backstop.
唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)给了弗拉基米尔•普京(Vladimir Putin)一对一会谈的极大面子。但他也以印度与后者做生意为由，提高了针对印度的关税。2月，他在白宫椭圆形办公室莫名其妙地对弗拉基米尔•泽连斯基(Volodymyr Zelenskyy)翻脸。但本周，他亲切地欢迎乌克兰总统再次到访。至于结束乌克兰战争，他不会给予这个被侵略国家像美国给予日本、菲律宾乃至欧洲多数国家那样的安全保障。但他不排除美国扮演某种形式的后盾角色。
To all these cases of ambiguity, there is a natural reaction. “It could be worse.” I wonder.
对于所有这些模棱两可的言行，人们的自然反应是，“情况本来可能会更糟。”我不那么肯定。
If Trump were clear and consistent that he is abandoning Ukraine, as well as Europe and Nato, the continent would have no choice but to become militarily self-sufficient as soon as possible. It might fail, of course, but there could be little doubt what should be done. If Trump were clear and consistent that he stands with democratic Europe, to the death, there would be no problem. One of these situations is ideal. The other, while grim, is an impetus for Europe to change: a fixed point that its leaders and voters can plan around.
如果特朗普明确且始终如一地表明他正在放弃乌克兰、欧洲和北约(NATO)，那么欧洲将别无选择，只能尽快做到在军事上自立。当然，欧洲可能会失败，但各方对于应该采取什么行动再无疑虑。如果特朗普明确且始终如一地表明他将誓死协防欧洲民主国家，那就不会有问题。在这两种情景中，有一种是理想的。另一种情景尽管严峻，但却是欧洲变革的动力：欧洲领导人和选民可以围绕这个“常数”制定计划。