Name: 歐洲對川普總統有任何影響力嗎？ | DW 新聞 (Has Europe got any influence over President Trump? | DW News)
Uploaded: 2025-12-13T17:14:23.000Z
Duration: 11 min 54 s

Well, recent developments in the war in Ukraine have left European countries wondering if they have any influence on US President Trump.

烏克蘭戰爭的最新發展，讓歐洲國家開始懷疑他們對 US President Trump 是否還有影響力。

Last Friday, Washington released a new national security strategy criticizing Europe.

上週五，Washington 公佈了一項新的國家安全戰略，批評歐洲。

US President Trump said this week that some European leaders are stupid.

US President Trump 這週表示，有些歐洲領導人很笨。

And there's also those Russian funds frozen in Belgium.

還有那些被凍結在 Belgium 的俄羅斯資金。

On Friday, the EU indefinitely froze the money to ensure that Russia friendly governments in Hungary and Slovakia do not prevent the money from being used to help Ukraine.

週五，歐盟無限期凍結了這筆錢，以確保親俄的匈牙利和斯洛伐克政府不會阻止這筆錢用來幫助烏克蘭。

Russia's central bank is suing the Belgium based Euro Clear, the bank that holds most of those assets, claiming freezing them is illegal.

俄羅斯央行正在起訴總部位於 Belgium 的 Euro Clear，這家銀行持有大部分資產，聲稱凍結這些資產是非法的。

And on Friday, Belgium's prime minister visited Downing street in London, where he was lobbied to end Belgium's resistance to using the assets for Ukraine's benefit.

週五，Belgium 總理拜訪了 London 的 Downing street，在那裡他被遊說，希望他能結束 Belgium 對動用這些資產來幫助烏克蘭的阻力。

Brussels fears that it will be left to repay the money to Russia when the war in Ukraine ends.

布魯塞爾擔心，一旦烏克蘭戰爭結束，將由他們來負責向俄羅斯償還這筆錢。

Well, all of this speaks to what is now an undeniable imbalance in power between the Trump administration and Europe.

這一切都顯示了川普政府和歐洲之間，現在存在著一個不容否認的力量不平衡。

He's a Brussels based journalist, author of the Gulfstream Blues column on Substack.

他是位駐布魯塞爾的記者，也是 Substack 上 Gulfstream Blues 專欄的作者。

He's been covering European politics for 20 years and he is now the author of the new book the Own Continent, which poses the question, why have Europeans surrendered to Donald Trump?

他報導歐洲政治已有 20 年，現在他寫了新書 Own Continent，書中提出一個問題：歐洲人為何向唐納·川普屈服？

Dave, it's good to have you on the program.

So what exactly is Europe owned by and how?

所以，歐洲到底被誰掌控？又是怎麼被掌控的？

Yeah, the book is taking a look at all of the acts of surrender that European leaders have made to Donald Trump over the past year, whether it be the various trade deals that the UK and EU and Switzerland signed with the US over the past months, the NATO 5% spending targets, which is a kind of number out of thin air that the US doesn't even meet.

是的，這本書探討了歐洲領導人在過去一年裡向唐納·川普示弱的所有行為，無論是英國、歐盟和瑞士在過去幾個月與美國簽署的各種貿易協議，還是北約 5% 的支出目標，這是一個美國自己都達不到的隨意數字。

But also the kind of supplicant posturing by European leaders as they came to the White House one after another, hat in hand, offering tributary gifts.

還有歐洲領導人在白宮一個接一個地出現時，像乞求者一樣的姿態，手裡拿著帽子，獻上進貢的禮物。

我的書提出了這個問題：為什麼？

Why was this the default response from Europe to Trump's aggression and extortion and not the default response of other places like Brazil, India and China, for instance, who did not surrender?

為什麼歐洲對川普的侵略和敲詐的預設反應是屈服，而像巴西、印度和中國等沒有屈服的地方，卻不是這種預設反應？

And the book posits that it's not just geopolitics, it's psychology.

書中認為，這不僅僅是地緣政治，更是心理因素。

It's the American culture that has dominated this continent for so long that it's made this idea that America could be a threat almost impossible for Europeans to conceive.

是美國文化長期以來在這個大陸佔據主導地位，使得歐洲人幾乎無法想像美國會構成威脅。

And that is why I posit that European citizens aren't up in arms about all of this surrender that's happened this year.

這也是為什麼我認為歐洲公民對於今年發生的所有屈服感到不滿。

Well, perhaps being owned could be a synonym for many people for enjoying being under the US security umbrella.

嗯，也許對許多人來說，「被擁有」可以當作享受美國安全保護傘下的同義詞。

I mean, is this change in perception that you're writing, is it all the result of Donald Trump?

我的意思是，你書裡寫的這種認知轉變，是唐納·川普造成的嗎？

Yeah, I mean, this is a different United States.

對，我的意思是，這是個不同的美國。

You know, it's even different than Trump's first term when he was really surrounded by the so called adults in the room, that the guardrails were still on.

你知道，甚至跟川普的第一任期也不同，那時候他真的被所謂的「房間裡的成年人」包圍著，還有防護欄。

Then in this second term, it's really something different entirely.

到了第二任期，這真的完全是另一回事了。

And I think Europeans can no longer think that Trump is just a blip.

我認為歐洲人再也不能認為川普只是曇花一現。

Now when it comes to the military dependence, I think most people are at least vaguely aware of that, although I think most Americans, most Europeans are not aware of the extent to which Europe is militarily dependent on the United States.

說到軍事上的依賴，我想大多數人至少都隱約知道，雖然我認為大多數美國人、大多數歐洲人並沒有意識到歐洲在軍事上對美國有多依賴。

But when it comes to economic dominance and cultural dominance, this is something that's really more hidden.

但說到經濟主導和文化主導，這就比較隱藏了。

It's not something that Europeans think about so much.

But if they think about how much of their daily life is spent watching American TV shows, American movies, listening to American music, going on American social media platforms, following American news, you really see that America dominates Europeans daily lives in a way that it's impossible that it wouldn't have affected people's psychology after all these years.

但如果他們想想自己每天有多少時間在看美國的電視節目、美國的電影、聽美國的音樂、用美國的社群媒體平臺、追美國的新聞，你就會發現美國在歐洲人日常生活中佔據主導地位，經過這麼多年，這不可能不影響人們的心理。

I want to talk a little bit more about economics and culture in just a moment.

我想再花一點時間談談經濟和文化。

Is Europe protected by this alliance or is it politically constrained by NATO?

歐洲是受到這個聯盟保護，還是受到北約的政治約束？

And I'm wondering where is the line between the two?

我在想這兩者之間的界線在哪裡？

Yeah, I mean, NATO had served Europe well in decades past, that's for sure.

是的，我的意思是，北約過去幾十年來確實對歐洲很有幫助，這點是肯定的。

After the fall of the BERLIN WALL In 1989, what did NATO become?

1989年柏林圍牆倒塌後，北約變成了什麼？

We all know when French President Emmanuel Macron called NATO brain dead back in 2017, there was huge backlash, particularly from the Atlanticist thinkers on this continent.

我們都知道，法國總統馬克宏在2017年稱北約「腦死亡」時，引發了巨大的反彈，特別是來自歐洲大陸的「大西洋主義」思想家。

I mean, NATO was in a bad place and it's still in a bad place, even if it convinces itself that it's more necessary than ever because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

我的意思是，北約當時處境艱難，現在依然如此，即使它因為俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭而說服自己比以往任何時候都更需要它。

I mean, the fact is NATO is under an American command and structure that doesn't work without the United States.

我的意思是，事實是北約處於美國的指揮和架構之下，沒有美國就無法運作。

The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaya Kallas, has said so herself.

歐盟外交政策負責人卡雅·卡拉斯自己也這麼說過。

There is no NATO without the United States.

That's not really an alliance, that's a protectorate.

這不是真正的聯盟，這是一個保護國。

So the attempts that have taken place, and

I walked through this in my book, the attempts that took place over the past decades trying to establish a European pillar of NATO so that you could have two equal partners, kept being defeated by the United States and its partners.

我在我的書裡詳細講過，過去幾十年來試圖建立北約的歐洲支柱，讓雙方能成為平等的夥伴，但這些嘗試都被美國及其夥伴打敗了。

In London, in Warsaw, in Berlin, who were opposed these efforts at EU defense.

在倫敦、華沙、柏林，誰反對這些歐盟防務的努力。

And that's left NATO still as something that doesn't work without the United States, which makes it very, very scary when the US President says he may not honor the Article 5 mutual defense clause or he could pull the US out of NATO altogether.

這就使得北約仍然離不開美國，這非常、非常令人擔憂，因為美國總統說他可能不會遵守第五條的共同防禦條款，或者他可能讓美國退出北約。

Dave, I'm wondering, the war in Ukraine, is it pushing Europe towards more independence?

Dave，我想問，烏克蘭戰爭是否正在推動歐洲走向更獨立？

I'm thinking about next week's end of year European Union summit, for example.

我想到下週的歐盟年終峰會，例如。

Leaders are expected to decide how to keep financing Ukraine to the tune of what, 200 billion euros.

與會領袖預計將決定如何繼續資助烏克蘭，金額高達多少？2000億歐元。

So the question is, will Europe finally make accessible those frozen Russian assets to Ukraine?

所以問題是，歐洲最終會不會讓被凍結的俄羅斯資產更容易撥給烏克蘭？

I mean, this is looking like a make or break moment to show that Europe is serious about standing on its own two feet.

我的意思是，這看起來是一個決定成敗的時刻，證明歐洲是認真地要獨立自主。

Yeah, that will be the key question for that summit next week because it is the last chance.

是的，這將是下週峰會的關鍵問題，因為這是最後的機會。

Ukraine will run out of money in April and the next European Council summit isn't until March.

烏克蘭將在四月耗盡資金，而下一次歐洲理事會峰會要到三月才會召開。

So if they don't agree this next week, Ukraine's not getting that money.

所以如果他們下週不達成協議，烏克蘭就拿不到這筆錢了。

Ukraine desperately needs that money because the US has stopped supporting Ukraine except for intelligence cooperation already, Europeans have agreed to be the middlemen in transferring American arms to Ukraine.

烏克蘭非常需要這筆錢，因為美國已經停止了對烏克蘭的支持，除了情報合作之外，歐洲國家已經同意充當美國軍火轉移給烏克蘭的中間人。

Under this new system, the US Is no longer sending arms to Ukraine.

在這個新體系下，美國不再向烏克蘭運送軍火。

European countries are buying the American arms and sending them to Ukraine.

歐洲國家正在購買美國的軍火並將其運往烏克蘭。

So already you have a situation where the US has pulled a lot of support.

所以現在的情況是，美國已經撤回了很多支持。

If the Europeans can't get this money to Ukraine, Ukraine probably has to surrender.

如果歐洲國家無法將這筆錢送到烏克蘭，烏克蘭可能不得不投降。

That is the analysis of of defense experts.

But on the point of whether the Ukraine crisis is making Europe get its act together and be more independent, ironically it's the exact opposite.

但關於烏克蘭危機是否讓歐洲團結起來並變得更獨立這一點，諷刺的是，情況恰恰相反。

Because Europe is so scared of Russia now and is in such an emergency situation with Ukraine, they've been terrified to offend the Trump administration.

因為歐洲現在非常害怕俄羅斯，並且在烏克蘭問題上面臨緊急狀況，他們一直不敢冒犯川普政府。

We've had the so called Daddy diplomacy that was nicknamed by think tanks here in Brussels after Mark Rutte calling Trump Daddy at that NATO summit in June.

這裡的智庫給這種所謂的「爸爸外交」取了個綽號，是在六月北約峰會上，馬克·呂特稱川普為「爸爸」之後。

So you've actually had the opposite effect, that Europe has been too scared to try to pursue independent defense at this critical moment because Russia is there looming as a threat and without the United States, Europe is somewhat defenseless.

所以事實上，情況正好相反，歐洲因為俄羅斯作為威脅而感到害怕，而且在沒有美國的情況下，歐洲有點不堪一擊，所以一直不敢在這個關鍵時刻追求獨立國防。

Let me ask you a little bit about economics here and the tech sector.

讓我來問你一些關於經濟和科技業的事情。

Is Europe, in your opinion, is it doomed to be the rules maker and the regulator while the US Remains the innovator?

在你認為，歐洲是不是註定只能當規則制定者和監管者，而美國仍然是創新者？

Yeah, this is something I touch on on the book.

是的，這是我在新書裡有提到的。

The Europe kind of missed the Internet revolution 25 years ago.

大約 25 年前，歐洲錯過了網路革命。

And so all of the biggest TEC companies are all American, and they are running our daily lives.

所以所有最大的科技公司都是美國的，它們掌控著我們的日常生活。

They're running our operating systems, our phones, our social media, how we stream movies and television.

它們掌控著我們的作業系統、手機、社群媒體，以及我們串流電影和電視的方式。

And that situation's for a lot of factors, none of which, by the way, are to do with EU regulation, which a lot of people like to say it's from an absence of seed capital.

而這種情況的發生，有很多因素，順帶一提，這些因素都跟歐盟的監管無關，很多人喜歡說這是因為缺乏種子資金。

Many reasons which I go through in the book.

很多原因，我都在書裡一一說明瞭。

But the end result is that right now, Europeans are dependent on these American tech giants.

但結果就是，現在歐洲人對這些美國科技巨頭非常依賴。

And if these companies decided to pull their services suddenly from Europe, it would leave our governments unable to funct businesses unable to function.

如果這些公司突然決定從歐洲撤回服務，我們的政府將無法運作，企業也將無法運作。

We wouldn't even be able to pay each other or buy things at the grocery store.

我們甚至無法互相支付，或是在雜貨店買東西。

So Europe is so, so incredibly dependent on these American companies.

所以歐洲對這些美國公司非常、非常依賴。

This isn't something you can solve overnight.

But a lot of questions I think are now being asked.

但我想現在很多人都在問一些問題。

How did Europeans get themselves to this place, in this notion of cultural dominance over Europe?

歐洲人是怎麼讓自己陷入這種境地的，這種對歐洲的文化主導權的觀念？

What does that look like in European politics?

這在歐洲政治中看起來是什麼樣子？

Well, the problem is that Europeans tend to know way more about American politics than they know about European politics, certainly more than they know about EU politics, and

嗯，問題是，歐洲人對美國政治的瞭解，遠遠超過他們對歐洲政治的瞭解，當然也遠遠超過他們對歐盟政治的瞭解，而且

oftentimes more than they know about their own national politics.

遠遠超過他們對自己國家政治的瞭解。

Because our media here in Europe is so dominated by news from the United States.

因為我們歐洲的媒體，實在充斥著太多來自美國的新聞。

And that creates a real problem if Europeans aren't paying attention to the critical decisions that have to be made at EU and national level.

如果歐洲人對歐盟和國家層級必須做出的關鍵決策不夠關注，這就會造成一個真正的問題。

If they're so focused on the United States, on US elections, on the back and forth between the Democratic Party, who's gonna be the nominee?

如果他們如此關注美國，關注美國的選舉，關注民主黨之間的來來回回，誰會是候選人？

That's not their country, that's a different country.

那不是他們的國家，那是另一個國家。

But the problem is this cultural domination in Europe has led many Europeans to almost feel like they live in the United States or at least on the outer edges of an American empire.

但問題是，歐洲這種文化主導，讓許多歐洲人幾乎感覺自己住在美國，或者至少是美國帝國的邊緣。

And that keeps them from being politically engaged in their own processes here on this continent.

這讓他們無法積極參與我們這個大陸上的政治進程。

Fascinating when we look at demographics here in Europe.

當我們看看歐洲的人口結構時，真的很有趣。

An aging continent, its generous and expensive social welfare programs, and

一個正在老齡化的洲，它慷慨且昂貴的社會福利計畫，以及

字幕列表影片播放

歐洲對川普總統有任何影響力嗎？ | DW 新聞 (Has Europe got any influence over President Trump? | DW News)

individual

critical

situation

term