For almost an entire year, Europe has repeatedly faced the same choice: go along with another outrageous demand from US President Donald Trump, or deploy what power it has to impose costs on Washington’s transgressions. Again and again, European leaders have chosen the former in the belief that ingratiating themselves with Trump will avoid the possibility of worse harm coming from opposing him.
将近一整年里，欧洲一再面临同一个选择：顺从美国总统唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的又一个令人愤懑的要求，还是运用自己的力量，让华盛顿为其违反规则的行为付出代价？一次又一次，欧洲领导人选择了前者，因为他们相信，若是反对特朗普就会遭受更严重的损害，而讨好他就可以避免这种可能性。
But in doing so, they have allowed considerable actual harm to accumulate: accepting vastly unbalanced tariff changes and the abandonment of the most-favoured-nation principle; interference in European elections and pressure to (de)regulate in favour of US tech; sanctions on political figures and international court officials; and taking on the full financial burden of containing Russia’s imperial military ambitions.
但这么做的结果就是眼睁睁看着实际损害越积越多：接受极其不对等的关税调整和抛弃最惠国原则；欧洲选举受到干预，在监管（和去监管）方面受到压力，要求实施对美国科技公司有利的措施；政治人物和国际法庭官员受到制裁；承担遏制俄罗斯帝国主义军事野心的全部财政负担。
The more Europe pays for its supplication, the less convincing its strategic rationale becomes. What evidence is there that hitting back would cost more? The most frequently mentioned fear is that if Europe stops kissing the ring, the US will stop supporting Ukraine. That raises the question of how much support the US has left to withdraw. Washington gives Ukraine hardly any money or weapons. As a result, as Nathalie Tocci of the Italian Institute for International Affairs points out, it “has lost significant leverage over Ukraine” and “does not have the cards to impose a capitulation”.
欧洲为做小伏低付出的代价越大，它这么做的战略依据就越没有说服力。有什么证据说反击会付出更大代价呢？最常被提到的一种顾虑是，如果欧洲不再俯首听命，美国就不会再支持乌克兰了。那么，美国还能停止什么支持呢？现在华盛顿几乎没给乌克兰任何资金或武器。所以，正如意大利国际事务研究所(Istituto Affari Internazionali)主任娜塔莉•托奇(Nathalie Tocci)所说的，美国“在乌克兰问题上已失去重要筹码”，“打不出硬要人屈服的牌了”。