Historical analogies are never perfect fits: 2025 is not 1938. The later date marked an attempt to impose peace on the Russian-Ukrainian War while the earlier sought to prevent war between Germany and Europe's democracies. Still, the press conference of February 29th 2025 held by American President Donald Trump, his Vice-President, JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinsky conjured up bitter memories. Their deal to end the Russian-Ukrainian conflict by imperiling Ukrainian sovereignty seemed much like the Munich Agreement of 1938 that sought to secure peace between Germany and Europe's democracies by abandoning Czechoslovakia to a dismal fate.
Having withdrawn Germany from the League of Nations, ending French Occupation of the Saar, remilitarizing the Rhineland, and achieving an annexation (Anschluss) with Austria, Adolf Hitler laid claim to the Sudetenland, or parts of Czechoslovakia inhabited by ethnic Germans -and threatened war unless his demands were met. Giving in to them meant dismemberingï ? ? ž the Czech republic and its President, Eduard Beneï ? ?... ï ? ?, refuseï ? ? d to back down. In practical terms, however, Czech resistance depended upon support from its democratic allies, England and France.
Europe seemed on the brink of another catastrophe just twenty years after the last one ended in 1918. To avoid war, at all costs, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier joined the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini, who was ambivalent about the imperialist ambitions of his ally, and journeyed to meet with Hitler in Munich. The Fuhrer's behavior toward Chamberlain in particular anticipated that of Trump and Vance toward Zelensky. Hitler ranted and raved, and threw the fear of God into the leaders of Europe's leading democracies. Nevertheless, that occurred in private while the tantrums of President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance took place in pubic for all the world to see.
Not that they were embarrassed. Trump's childish behavior has not cost him the support of his base; indeed, whatever else can be said about the president, he knows his people. Zelensky was left no choice other than accept their invitation to appear before the cameras in order to discuss the peace that merely awaited his approval. However, agreement was not enough: Trump and Vance also wanted to see the Ukrainian president grovel in public and show the appropriate" gratitude" to Trump personally for a policy initiative that would prove unfavorable to his country. This set the stage for the kind of bullying rhetoric that Trump in particular always employs.
Ukraine's sovereignty had already been compromised; indeed, such was the price for the aid it received from the Biden administration to fight Russia's invasion of its territory. This dependency put Zelensky at a decided disadvantage. He knew it, and the American leaders knew it, too. Then, too, Trump had long admired Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his shady real-estate dealings with Moscow are well known. By the same token, his antipathy toward Ukraine reaches back to its leaders' refusal to falsify evidence about then Vice-President Joe Biden and his son that could prove useful in his 2020 campaign for the oval office.
"Appeasement" today has a new wrinkle. Chamberlain and Daladier meant to satisfy the imperialist cravings of an enemy, Hitler, while Trump's policy is intended to normalize relations with Russia and favor a friend-- Putin. Insisting during his presidential campaign that he could end the war "in 24 hours," Trump is basically ready to support Putin's claims to roughly 20% of Ukraine. As surely as Czechoslovakia in 1938, indeed, Ukraine is in danger in finding itself dismembered in 2025. However, there is a difference. Chamberlain hoped and prayed that Hitler would not make new territorial demands, and respect what remained of the Czech state, whereas Trump seems cynically unconcerned with whether Putin will refrain from further imperialist adventures.
An agreement between Trump and Putin was in the works before the press conference with Zelensky took place. It had been hammered out between the United States and Russia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, by American Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The talks were insular: just as Czechoslovakia and other East European states were excluded from the Munich Conference of 1938, representatives from Ukraine and the European Union were not invited in 2025. This only made sense given that the coming peace would rest on what Trump proudly termed a "very big deal."
This deal would amount to yet another quasi-real estate "transaction" whereby the United States would receive virtually free access to Ukraine's mineral resources in exchange for a "reconstruction investment fund" jointly managed by the two nations. The role that Trump businesses will play in this enterprise has not been made public, but rest assured, he will get his cut. In any event, Trump insists that the deal would recompense the United States with $500 billion in profits for the $130 billion in aid -not $350 billion as claimed by the American president -- that had so far been given Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
Appeasement today has a new twist: not only is an ally abandoned, and a dictator strengthened, but the victim of invasion is forced into paying for the invader's gains. Repayment through the extraction of minerals would begin immediately while American investment would take place later; not exactly a formula for "joint" management. Without explicit security guarantees, belief that this deal will stem Putin's imperialist ambitions is either naÃÆ’ƒƒÃÆ’ï ? ? € ï ? ? €™ÃƒƒÃ†’ï ? ? € ï ? ? €™ÃƒƒÃ†’ï ? ? € ï ? ? €™ ÃÆ’ƒƒÃÆ’ï ? ? € ï ? ? €™ ÃÆ’Æ’ à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’Æ’Æ’ ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’Æ’ à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’Æ’ à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’Æ’Æ’ ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’Æ’ à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’Æ’ à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? ÃÆ’ à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ? à ï ? ? ? ? à ï ? ? ? ?ve or a smokescreen-- most likely the latter Trump has often stated that he is willing to give Putin a free hand in the region and he is clearly intent on normalizing relations with America's former cold-war enemy.
Charitable souls can argue that Chamberlain actually recognized the danger of war and that he was buying time for England and France to begin re-arming. But that is not the case with Trump and Putin. The United States has now re-oriented its foreign policy and switched sides in this terrible war between Russia and Ukraine. Especially after having been labeled a "dictator" by Trump, it makes sense that Zelensky should have protested his treatment in front of the camera and questioned the peace agreement. Nevertheless, that his administration lacked a "Plan B" verges on the irresponsible-- and the same can be said of the European Union.
Its members now find themselves in exactly the same position as the Biden Administration with regard to (unlimited) military aid for Ukraine. The EU might bribe some important nation or two, India or even China, to enter an alliance. Under any circumstances, however, Europe must now take the lead in defending Ukraine and resisting Russian imperialism. Whether that will involve increasing military aid, further boycotting and sanctions, or even creating a European army remains an open question. Turkey, France, and the United Kingdom are already talking about sending troops to Ukraine thus heightening the possibility of a broader war.
The world is still recovering from this debacle that was either purposely planned or spontaneously provoked by Trump and Vance. Zelensky kept his pride intact by publicly standing up to these authoritarian bullies. But, they will surely seek "retribution" from the Ukrainian president. Trump might end sanctions on Russia and impose them on Ukraine, or - as he stated during his diatribe - he could abandon Ukraine altogether, thus leaving it and Europe to their own devices.
No less than with Czechoslovakia in 1938, the actual subject of imperialist aggression, Ukraine in 2025 is of secondary importance in the still unfolding crisis. Still, it would be a serious mistake to assume that, should a crisis occur, President Trump will act in accord with some traditional understanding of the American "national interest." Were that the case, he would not have chosen to confront China with high tariffs (which might reach 25% on some goods) rather than support Russia and ignore the threat posed by Putin to world peace.
Actions speak louder than words: Trump has always identified the national interest with the benefits that he or his business concerns can accrue. The political implication is that the president is not committed to any given strategy but, instead, an opportunism that masquerades as a strategy. This means that traditional alliances should no longer be taken for granted, arbitrary exercises of power are on the agenda, policy reversals can occur at a moment's notice, and the United States can no longer be considered a reliable ally by any nation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
