2024 年美國大選：“川普是一個可怕的結局，而卡馬拉則是永無止境的恐怖”

這次訪問可能動搖了烏克蘭川普支持者的一些支持。川普的言論——所有烏克蘭城市都已被摧毀，軍隊只剩下兒童和老人，而澤倫斯基只專注於從美國獲得另一袋錢——很難從任何積極的角度來解釋。

A Ukrainian government official recently commented on the upcoming US presidential election, stating that the choice between President Harris and President Trump is like deciding between a "terrible end" and "horror without end." This sentiment highlights a key question on the minds of many Ukrainians: which candidate would be more beneficial to their country.

烏克蘭政府官員近日就即將舉行的美國總統大選發表評論稱，哈里斯總統和川普總統之間的選擇就像在「可怕的結局」和「無盡的恐怖」之間做出選擇。這種情緒凸顯了許多烏克蘭人心中的一個關鍵問題：哪位候選人對他們的國家更有利。

Despite President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to the US and interactions with both contenders, clarity on this matter remains elusive. Some Trump supporters may have been swayed by his remarks, which included claims that Ukrainian cities have been destroyed, leaving only children and elderly soldiers, and that Zelenskyy is preoccupied with obtaining US funds. Trump's proposed solution is for Ukraine to concede to Russia's demands, leading to an end to the war.

儘管弗拉基米爾·澤倫斯基總統訪問了美國並與兩位競爭者進行了互動，但這一問題的清晰度仍然難以捉摸。川普的一些支持者可能受到了他的言論的影響，其中包括聲稱烏克蘭城市已被摧毀，只剩下兒童和老年士兵，以及澤連斯基一心只想獲得美國資金。川普提出的解決方案是烏克蘭屈服於俄羅斯的要求，從而結束戰爭。

While Trump's specific plan for Ukraine is unclear, some hope that his impulsivity and unpredictability could ultimately benefit the country. They believe that Trump may surprise Putin with unexpected demands, provoking a backlash that could galvanize Trump and lead to Congress approving massive aid for Ukraine. However, this theory relies on too many contingencies to serve as a solid basis for expectations.

儘管川普對烏克蘭的具體計畫尚不清楚，但有些人希望他的衝動和不可預測性最終能讓該國受益。他們認為，川普可能會提出意想不到的要求，讓普丁感到驚訝，引發強烈反彈，刺激川普並導致國會批准對烏克蘭的大規模援助。然而，這一理論依賴太多的偶然事件，無法作為預期的堅實基礎。

Regarding Kamala Harris, her stance is less clear. The general perception is that her victory would lead to a continuation of Joe Biden's policies, including those pertaining to Ukraine. Compared to her opponent, she appears to be more systematic and predictable, but this provides limited insight into her approach to foreign policy.

關於卡瑪拉·哈里斯，她的立場不太明確。人們普遍認為，她的勝利將導致喬·拜登政策的延續，包括與烏克蘭有關的政策。與她的對手相比，她似乎更加系統化和可預測，但這為我們了解她的外交政策方針提供了有限的見解。

Several factors will influence Harris's handling of this area, including the individuals appointed to her administration, especially considering her minimal involvement in foreign policy throughout her political career. Some key figures in the Biden administration, with specific exceptions, will not be joining Harris's cabinet. Additionally, predicting a future president's actions based on their pre-presidential activities is a challenging endeavor, as Ukrainians know well with their current leader.

有幾個因素將影響哈里斯在這一領域的處理，包括任命到她的政府的人員，特別是考慮到她在整個政治生涯中對外交政策的參與極少。拜登政府的一些關鍵人物，除特殊情況外，不會加入哈里斯內閣。此外，根據總統任職前的活動來預測未來總統的行動是一項具有挑戰性的工作，烏克蘭人對現任領導人非常了解。

The official's assessment of a "terrible end" or "horror without end" stems from the belief that the US will inevitably withdraw from Ukraine, regardless of the election outcome.

這位官員對「可怕的結局」或「永無止境的恐怖」的評估源於這樣的信念：無論選舉結果如何，美國都將不可避免地從烏克蘭撤軍。

The common argument that America has invested too heavily in Ukraine and is too deeply entrenched to abandon it now, due to a reluctance to lose its "investment," does not withstand practical scrutiny. The most striking example is Afghanistan, where Americans invested far more, in every sense of the word, and were much more deeply involved. Yet when the decision was made, the US withdrew, though the manner in which this was done is widely regarded as a major failure of the Biden administration.

人們普遍認為，由於不願失去“投資”，美國在烏克蘭投資過多，而且根深蒂固，現在無法放棄它，這種觀點經不起實際審查。最引人注目的例子是阿富汗，美國人在阿富汗的投入遠多於各方面，參與也更加深入。然而，當決定做出時，美國卻退出了，儘管這樣做的方式被廣泛認為是拜登政府的重大失敗。

The style of "withdrawal" from Ukraine under Trump and Harris would differ significantly. Trump may abruptly cut off all support, simply not raising the issue of a new aid package — assuming his attempt to broker "peace in 24 hours" predictably fails.

川普和哈里斯領導下從烏克蘭「撤軍」的風格會有很大不同。川普可能會突然切斷所有支持，只是不再提出新的援助計畫——假設他斡旋「24小時內實現和平」的嘗試如預期失敗。

Harris, while less overtly isolationist, would prioritize domestic concerns, reducing US involvement in the war and shifting responsibility to Europeans.

哈里斯雖然不那麼公開孤立主義，但他會優先考慮國內問題，減少美國對戰爭的參與，並將責任轉移給歐洲人。

However, the US will still aim to prevent Ukraine's complete defeat and the aggressors' military victory. Studies indicate that such an outcome would be unacceptable to most American voters, including Republicans, and would be seen as a clear humiliation for America on the international stage, bolstering its archenemies.

但美國的目標仍然是阻止烏克蘭的徹底失敗和侵略者的軍事勝利。研究表明，這樣的結果對於包括共和黨人在內的大多數美國選民來說是無法接受的，並且會被視為美國在國際舞台上的明顯恥辱，助長了美國的宿敵。

These same studies also reveal that the average American is largely indifferent to the precise location of Ukraine's eastern border or the flag flown over Donbas villages — matters that remain critically important to a vast majority of Ukrainians, according to sociological surveys.

這些研究還表明，普通美國人基本上對烏克蘭東部邊境的確切位置或頓巴斯村莊上空飄揚的旗幟漠不關心——根據社會學調查，這些問題對絕大多數烏克蘭人來說仍然至關重要。

Thus, pressure on Kyiv to accept a peace deal after the elections will likely increase. Ending the war while preserving Ukraine's independence — these conditions can be easily sold to both Democratic and Republican voters.

因此，基輔在選舉後接受和平協議的壓力可能會增加。在保持烏克蘭獨立的同時結束戰爭——這些條件很容易賣給民主黨和共和黨選民。

But not to Russia. Against the backdrop of numerous Western press articles discussing various formats for negotiations, peace, and ceasefire, former Washington Post editor Robert Kagan's column stands out for its remarkable sanity.

但不是俄羅斯。在眾多西方媒體文章討論談判、和平與停火的各種形式的背景下，《華盛頓郵報》前編輯羅伯特·卡根的專欄因其非凡的理智而脫穎而出。

"As is so often the case, US foreign policy toward Ukraine has been driven by what Americans don’t want. They don’t want to wind up at war with Russia; they don’t want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on a seemingly unwinnable war; but they also don’t want to bear the guilt and shame of letting Ukraine lose, with all the humanitarian horrors and strategic problems that entails," writes Kagan.

「正如通常的情況一樣，美國對烏克蘭的外交政策是由美國人不想要的東西驅動的。他們不想最終與俄羅斯交戰；他們不想每年花費數千億美元卡根寫道：「今年是一場看似無法取勝的戰爭，但他們也不想承受讓烏克蘭失敗的內疚和恥辱，以及隨之而來的所有人道恐怖和戰略問題。

The problem is that all Western advocates of peaceful resolution propose options that suit the West but do not satisfy the Kremlin. Whoever ends up in the White House will have to deal with Putin, who shows no signs of backing away from his outrageous demands. "We are not going to be rescued by a peace deal. Americans need to decide soon whether they are prepared to let Ukraine lose," concludes Kagan on a grim note.

問題在於，所有西方和平解決方案的倡議者都提出了適合西方但不令克里姆林宮滿意的方案。無論誰最終入主白宮，都必須與普丁打交道，而普丁並沒有表現出放棄其無理要求的跡象。卡根冷酷地總結道：“和平協議不會拯救我們。美國人需要盡快決定是否準備好讓烏克蘭失敗。”

Of course, this bleak scenario is not the only possible outcome. External conditions can shift rapidly. In about a year, the situation for Ukraine may become notably more favorable. For instance, a change in government in Germany could lead to a more decisive leadership after the next elections. If serious internal problems begin to escalate in the aggressor

當然，這種慘淡的情況並不是唯一可能的結果。外部條件可能會迅速變化。大約一年後，烏克蘭的局勢可能會變得明顯更加有利。例如，德國政府的更迭可能會導致下一次選舉後領導層更加果斷。如果侵略者內部嚴重問題開始升級