The lesson of appeasement: Do not give ground to Putin
It is easy to sympathize with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he accused Western leaders of cowardice for not providing enough military support to his besieged country (“Zelenskyy lashes out at Western nations in plea,” March 28). Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, is correct in asserting that “this war is not only about Ukraine,” but also “an attack on democracy.”
While reading about the West’s response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest aggression, a term from an old high school history lesson appeared in my head: “appeasement.” After the collective trauma of World War I, the League of Nations was formed with the expressed mission of maintaining world peace. Its philosophy was to obtain collective security for its members and to settle international disputes through arbitration and negotiation. Economic sanctions by its members were to be levied against an aggressor.
The approach ultimately proved ineffectual in the face of incursions by the Axis powers. Appeasement is the term commonly applied to the foreign policy of Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain leading up to World War II. It included making territorial concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict. The failure of appeasement appears as a lesson to be learned in countless history books.
Sound familiar? The parallels to the current situation in the Ukraine are chilling. President Putin has no doubt been emboldened by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. NATO’s response will have major geopolitical and economic ramifications. It must not be viewed by Mr. Putin as weak or ineffectual.
Lest the world forget, there is a moral issue here as well. We bear witness to the daily heartbreaking images of the Ukranian people as their sovereign nation is invaded and its civilians attacked. A devastating refugee crisis is left in its wake.
NATO leaders will be well served by remembering the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”