Who can save Ukraine now?
Trump's appeasement of Putin and why we're not in the 1930s yet
History of the Present (Five days to 14 February 2025)
History has gone into overdrive in the first weeks of Donald Trump's second term as he bulldozes principles, institutions and partnerships that US foreign policy and the transatlantic alliance have cultivated for more than 75 years. I felt impelled to respond immediately to the Trump-Putin phone call. TGA
Donald Trump’s appeasement of Vladimir Putin makes Neville Chamberlain look like a principled, courageous realist. At least Chamberlain was trying to prevent a major European war, whereas Trump is acting in the middle of one. Trump’s “Munich” (synonymous in English with the 1938 deal in which Britain and France sold out Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany) comes on the eve of the big security conference in today’s Bavarian capital, where his emissaries will meet western allies. That Munich security conference must be the beginning of a decisive European response, learning from our own tragic history in order to avoid repeating it.
The next step Trump proposes is in effect a new “Yalta” (referring to the February 1945 US-Soviet-UK summit in the Crimean resort of Yalta, which has become synonymous with superpowers deciding the fate of European countries over their heads). In this case, his proposal is that the US and Russia should decide the fate of Ukraine with marginal if any involvement of Ukraine or other European countries. But this time the occupants of the White House and the Kremlin should meet first in Saudi Arabia, then in their respective capitals, while it seems the actual Yalta, in the Crimea, is to be ceded to Russia. For in the brave new world of Trump and Putin, might is right and territorial expansion is what great powers do, be it Russia to Ukraine, the US to Canada and Greenland – or China to Taiwan.
All historical analogies have their limits and those with “Munich” and “Yalta” have been overused. But here, for once, they do feel apposite – so long as we highlight differences as well as similarities.
For a few weeks after Trump’s election we had a faint hope that when it came to Ukraine his administration would follow its proclaimed motto of “peace through strength”, understanding that strength is the only language Putin comprehends. Now we see that Trump not only bullies his country’s friends but sucks up to his country’s enemies.
This so-called strongman is actually a weak man when it comes to confronting the hostile authoritarians of this world. In just one day, he has made four large, unnecessary and damaging concessions. First, he has not just initiated exploratory talks with Putin via an intermediary, which would be defensible, but personally given the Russian dictator fulsome and sycophantic recognition as a world leader. “We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations,” he reported of their long phone call, in a social media post. They discussed “the great benefit that we will someday have in working together. But first, as we both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine.” Imagine if in 1941, instead of entering the war against Nazi Germany on the side of Britain and other allied European nations, the president of the United States had rung up Hitler, reflected on “the Great History of our Nations”, and then talked about jointly ending “the War with Germany/Britain”.
Second, he has offered the Russian leader a bilateral US-Russian negotiation over the heads of the Ukrainians, precisely the kind of new Yalta that Putin has always wanted. And then, third and fourth, he has declared that Ukraine will almost certainly have to concede territory and that the US will not support its membership of Nato. Both those things have been said privately in Washington and other western capitals for some time, but publicly conceding them upfront is a masterclass in how not to practise the “art of the deal”. (He did something similar in negotiations with the Taliban over Afghanistan, starting rather than ending with a timetable for US withdrawal.) Historians now have the notes and recollections of those close to Hitler, documenting his delight at the deal he exacted from Chamberlain. One day, we may have similar evidence of Putin’s private glee at the concessions made by Trump.
This doesn’t mean there will be anything deserving the name of peace any time soon. The Kremlin’s first public readout from the Trump-Putin call was notably cautious, warning that it is “essential to settle the reasons for the conflict”. Probably Putin’s ideal scenario would be to keep talking peace with Trump, through a series of leisurely summits in Saudi Arabia, the US and Russia, while Russia continues to press forward on the battlefield, demolish Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and undermine its economy, society and political unity in other ways. (Asked about the involvement of Ukraine in the talks, Trump mentioned the need for a presidential election there, thus parroting a Russian attack line on the legitimacy of president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.)
There’s one huge difference between Europe at the time of the original Munich and Yalta, and Europe now. Today’s Europe is rich, free, democratic and a closely integrated community of partners and allies. Yes, as recent polling by the European Council on Foreign Relations again demonstrates, it’s also divided and confused about the best way forward for Ukraine. But with a sufficiently determined coalition of willing and capable countries, definitely including Britain, Europe can still enable Ukraine to stabilise the frontline, hold up economically and eventually get to negotiate from strength, not weakness. That’s why this weekend’s Munich security conference must be the beginning of a European riposte to Trump’s Munich.
This commentary first appeared in the Guardian, 13 February 2025. Please use this link if reposting. It has appeared in German in Die Zeit, in Spanish in El Pais, in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza, in Ukrainian in The Ukrainian Week and a number of other languages.
Should Joseph Kennedy Sr have become president instead of FDR, then I'm afraid we would not have had to imagine that "the president of the United States had rung up Hitler, reflected on “the Great History of our Nations”, and then talked about jointly ending “the War with Germany/Britain”."
Kennedy openly advocated for support for Hitler especially during the Blitz when he was US Ambassador to England. All that stopped this earlier Elon Musk oligarch from taking the Republican nomination and possibly beating Rosevelt was the untimely (for him) attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese and the immediate declaration of war by Germany on America. If Hitler hadn't jumped the gun, Kennedy's strong following with Charles Lindburgh and the American isolationalists of the time were popular enough at the time to really give FDR a run for his money in the general election.
One final historical parallel - Kennedy Sr and LiLindburgh were the public face of a host of American industrialist who invested heavily in German manufacturing and pharmaceuticals, litteraly powering and financing a lot of Germany's 1930's pre war production. Elon's proproteges....
I abhor the decoupling the USA from European (and possibly from Japanese and South Korean) security.
We are, all of us, not merely allies with common interests — we are friends with shared values.
Nonetheless, the United Kingdom and France each currently has the tools -- until my countrymen regain their senses -- to maintain a semblance of stability: submarine-launched thermonuclear ICBMs.
One year ago, the then-German Finance Minister, Christian Lindner of the Free Democratic Party, suggested a joint Anglo-French thermonuclear shield over European democracies, in the event of Trump's return to the White House:
https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/15/german-minister-calls-for-british-and-french-nuclear-weapons-to-protect-europe
Putin has ignored treaties and agreements on Ukrainian sovereignty.
However, like other bullies, the Russian dictator respects strength.
I suggest that the British and French Governments recall the sage words of a Yorkshire-born Mississippi River steamboat gambler, William "Canada Bill" Jones:
"A Smith & Wesson beats four aces."
I have yet to learn of an aggressor who took a chance invading democracies protected by a thermonuclear deterrent.
The Anglo-French thermonuclear Entente Cordiale could even be extended to Japan and South Korea.
In addition, the European Union and the United Kingdom could dust off the Pleven Plan of 1950, written by Common Market founding father Jean Monnet and endorsed by Churchill, calling for a European Defense Community.
In 1950, the European Defense Community was intended to supplement NATO.
Sadly, today, a renewed European defense effort may have to *substitute* for NATO. Such an effort would build upon the Eurocorps, already composed of 11 member countries.
There are rewards for American and European politicians who speak up *now* for the cause of freedom.
History — and voters — will remember their names.
Recall that, in the Thirties, three anti-appeasement politicians -- Churchill, Eden, and Macmillan -- were among a tiny minority within their own party.
Yet, ultimately, those three men led the British Government or the Conservative Party for more than 24 years, ruling from 10 Downing Street for most of that time.
Mark Bernkopf
Arlington, Virginia, USA