2024 年美国大选：“特朗普是一个可怕的结局，而卡马拉则是永无止境的恐怖”

这次访问可能动摇了乌克兰特朗普支持者的一些支持。特朗普的言论——所有乌克兰城市都已被摧毁，军队只剩下儿童和老人，而泽连斯基只专注于从美国获得另一袋钱——很难从任何积极的角度来解释。

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.

乌克兰政府官员近日就即将举行的美国总统大选发表评论称，哈里斯总统和特朗普总统之间的选择就像在“可怕的结局”和“无尽的恐怖”之间做出选择。这种情绪凸显了许多乌克兰人心中的一个关键问题：哪位候选人对他们的国家更有利。

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.

尽管弗拉基米尔·泽伦斯基总统访问了美国并与两位竞争者进行了互动，但这一问题的清晰度仍然难以捉摸。特朗普的一些支持者可能受到了他的言论的影响，其中包括声称乌克兰城市已被摧毁，只剩下儿童和老年士兵，以及泽连斯基一心只想获得美国资金。特朗普提出的解决方案是乌克兰屈服于俄罗斯的要求，从而结束战争。

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.

尽管特朗普对乌克兰的具体计划尚不清楚，但一些人希望他的冲动和不可预测性最终能让该国受益。他们认为，特朗普可能会提出意想不到的要求，让普京感到惊讶，从而引发强烈反弹，从而刺激特朗普并导致国会批准对乌克兰的大规模援助。然而，这一理论依赖于太多的偶然事件，无法作为预期的坚实基础。

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.

关于卡玛拉·哈里斯，她的立场不太明确。人们普遍认为，她的胜利将导致乔·拜登政策的延续，包括与乌克兰有关的政策。与她的对手相比，她似乎更加系统化和可预测，但这为我们了解她的外交政策方针提供了有限的见解。

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.

有几个因素将影响哈里斯在这一领域的处理，包括任命到她的政府的人员，特别是考虑到她在整个政治生涯中对外交政策的参与极少。拜登政府的一些关键人物，除特殊情况外，不会加入哈里斯内阁。此外，根据总统任职前的活动来预测未来总统的行动是一项具有挑战性的工作，乌克兰人对现任领导人非常了解。

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.

这位官员对“可怕的结局”或“永无休止的恐怖”的评估源于这样的信念：无论选举结果如何，美国都将不可避免地从乌克兰撤军。

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.

人们普遍认为，由于不愿失去“投资”，美国在乌克兰投资过多，而且根深蒂固，现在无法放弃它，这种观点经不起实际审查。最引人注目的例子是阿富汗，美国人在阿富汗的投入远多于各个方面，而且参与也更加深入。然而，当决定做出时，美国却退出了，尽管这样做的方式被广泛认为是拜登政府的重大失败。

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.

特朗普和哈里斯领导下从乌克兰“撤军”的风格会有很大不同。特朗普可能会突然切断所有支持，只是不再提出新的援助计划——假设他斡旋“24小时内实现和平”的尝试如预期失败。

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

哈里斯虽然不那么公开孤立主义，但他会优先考虑国内问题，减少美国对战争的参与，并将责任转移给欧洲人。

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.

但美国的目标仍然是阻止乌克兰的彻底失败和侵略者的军事胜利。研究表明，这样的结果对于包括共和党人在内的大多数美国选民来说是无法接受的，并且会被视为美国在国际舞台上的明显耻辱，从而助长了美国的宿敌。

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.

这些研究还表明，普通美国人基本上对乌克兰东部边境的确切位置或顿巴斯村庄上空飘扬的旗帜漠不关心——根据社会学调查，这些问题对绝大多数乌克兰人来说仍然至关重要。

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，基辅在选举后接受和平协议的压力可能会增加。在保持乌克兰独立的同时结束战争——这些条件很容易卖给民主党和共和党选民。

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.

但不是俄罗斯。在众多西方媒体文章讨论谈判、和平与停火的各种形式的背景下，《华盛顿邮报》前编辑罗伯特·卡根的专栏因其非凡的理智而脱颖而出。

"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.

“正如通常的情况一样，美国对乌克兰的外交政策是由美国人不想要的东西驱动的。他们不想最终与俄罗斯交战；他们不想每年花费数千亿美元卡根写道：“今年是一场看似无法取胜的战争，但他们也不想承受让乌克兰失败的内疚和耻辱，以及随之而来的所有人道主义恐怖和战略问题。”

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.

问题在于，所有西方和平解决方案的倡导者都提出了适合西方但不令克里姆林宫满意的方案。无论谁最终入主白宫，都必须与普京打交道，而普京并没有表现出放弃其无理要求的迹象。卡根冷酷地总结道：“和平协议不会拯救我们。美国人需要尽快决定是否准备好让乌克兰失败。”

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

当然，这种惨淡的情况并不是唯一可能的结果。外部条件可能会迅速变化。大约一年后，乌克兰的局势可能会变得明显更加有利。例如，德国政府的更迭可能会导致下一次选举后领导层更加果断。如果侵略者内部严重问题开始升级