How to Choose Dishonour
“As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep, according to two other Trump-aligned national security experts”. When reading that passage from the Politico’s article, I cannot help but make historical parallels. We had already seen that in the past — just before WWII. In 1938, the United Kingdom and France agreed with German claims on Czechoslovakia and allowed Hitler to annex Sudetenland. Western politicians considered that agreement in Munich as a way to keep peace in Europe. But it only convinced the aggressor to want more…
Sure, the US is quite far away from Russia (of course, until the Russian government doesn’t want to take Alaska back). (By the way, I wonder how Trump would respond if Putin declared Alaska Russian territory.) They consider China a more serious threat than a war somewhere on the edge of Europe. It is obvious and easy to understand. What I cannot understand is why American politicians don’t want to learn history. It shows that the aggressor perceives any settlement as a sign of weakness. Europeans discovered that the hard way: the Munich agreement didn’t help them to avoid war. The US stayed neutral as long as possible but didn’t manage to avoid it as well. Why do their politicians think that they can avoid it this time? Any attempts to appease the Russian aggressors undermine the image of the USA as a global power and encourage Russian allies to confront.
Moreover, Russia has already demonstrated that it doesn’t follow any agreements. In 1997, it signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership with Ukraine. This document declared respect for territorial integrity. In 2014, it turned out that the treaty was just a piece of paper: Russia captured Crimea and started war in eastern Ukraine. In 2022, it launched a full-scale invasion and annexed other parts of Ukraine — regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, and Donetsk oblasts. Also, they committed numerous atrocities and war crimes in occupied territories. They are stealing our land, resources, cultural heritage, and even our children. Is it appropriate to strike any deals with war criminals in the 21st century? If yes, what is the real worth of Western values?
When the Munich Agreement was signed, Winston Churchill famously said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war”. However, British Prime Minister Nevill Chamberlain who brought the paper to London was sure that he would bring peace. A year passed and it turned out that it was just a piece of paper…
I sincerely want to believe that this historical parallel is incorrect. That West will not face such a horrible choice as it faced 75 years ago. But I really doubt that it is possible to win any war by signing a peace treaty with a person who was declared war criminal by the International Criminal Court. It can only encourage him to want more. Watch this old video with Chamberlain and remember what happened later…
