Antonio Navalón
Throughout his 100-year life and career as a political guru, Henry Kissinger always argued that the Russians should not be provoked or put in a situation in which they might feel threatened.
In politics, there are causes and coincidences, both very different in nature. The start of the war in Ukraine coincides with a causal event: Zelensky’s attempt to modify the Ukrainian Constitution to make Ukraine a NATO member. Moscow would clearly never tolerate this.
Neither Chamberlain nor the French Prime Minister Daladier are characters that have any comparison today. However, probably to the world’s misfortune, Vladimir Putin has a character with whom he can be compared and likened, and that is precisely that strange figure that emerged from the most conservative bowels of deep America represented by Donald Trump.
On September 30, 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed by Neville Chamberlain, Benito Mussolini, Édouard Daladier, and Adolf Hitler. This document allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland, a territory of Czechoslovakia, with the consent of the United Kingdom and France, which sought to avoid war through a policy of appeasement.
After signing, each leader interpreted the agreement in their own way. On the one hand, Chamberlain returned to London with a piece of paper and an optimistic phrase: “I believe this document means peace for our time”. On the other hand, Mussolini presented the signing of this document as a diplomatic success, reinforcing his image as a mediator and strengthening his alliance with Hitler. Although he accepted the pact skeptically, Daladier was received with enthusiasm in France. And finally, Hitler assured that he would have no further territorial aspirations once the Sudetenland question had been resolved. However, there was a feeling in the air that an inevitable conflict was only being postponed, and history would show how little the German leader’s word was worth.
France and England had been trying to negotiate an agreement with the Soviet Union for months. They knew that, without Stalin’s collaboration, the possibility of confronting Hitler would be an even more significant challenge. However, mistrust of the Soviet regime paralyzed them. They could not decide what was more dangerous: signing a defensive treaty with the Soviets or risking a war on two fronts, one against Germany and another, possibly against the Soviet Union.
However, Hitler and Stalin, both pragmatists to the core, did not have such moral dilemmas. It did not matter that their ideologies were opposed or that their regimes despised each other; all that mattered to them was their own interests and how to satisfy their ambitions or purposes. Neither of them wanted to fight on two fronts at the same time. So, in an exercise of pure realism, they decided to set aside their differences and sign a pact.
August 23, 1939, was a watershed and marked a turning point in world history. Certainties collapsed, and the fate of Europe was sealed by a pact of convenience between two of the most ruthless leaders of the 20th century.
On that day, the foreign ministers of Germany and the USSR, Joachim von Ribbentrop and Viacheslav Molotov, announced the agreement to the world: a non-aggression pact that, in practice, was much more than that. Hitler and Stalin not only promised not to attack each other but also agreed to divide Eastern Europe. Germany would control Western Poland and Lithuania, and Russia would take Eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Bessarabia (today Moldova).
The miscalculation of France and England was lethal. Not having reached an agreement with Stalin left the way open for Nazi expansion and, indirectly, Soviet expansion as well. But even if they had managed to bring the Russian leader over to their side, there was no guarantee that Stalin would not have negotiated simultaneously with Hitler.
Politics does not demand coherence, only intelligence: knowing when and how to escalate conflicts according to each player’s convenience and capacity.
Today, listening to Donald Trump describe Volodymyr Zelensky as a “mediocre comedian”, it is impossible not to recall the lessons of that pact between the Germans and the Soviets. Not because Trump is Hitler or because Putin is Stalin, but because, once again, political pragmatism prevails over any other consideration.
After billions of dollars invested in defense and thousands of lives lost in Ukraine, history is heading towards a similar conclusion. In other words, in the end, intentions matter little as it is the will of strong men and leaders that generally ends up imposing the agenda and determining the course of history.
However, there is a key difference to bear in mind: this is not 1939. The world has already lived through not one but two world wars that cost millions of lives.
We thought we had built an order based on alliances such as the European Union and the United Nations, later the creation of NATO, and a system distinguishing between democracies and authoritarian regimes. However, we were wrong to think that this would be enough.
In the midst of all the disasters created, it must be borne in mind that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not something new. It is a historical dispute with deep roots. Ukraine has always been a territory coveted and desired by the Russians. During World War II, it was crucial to Soviet resistance against the German invasion. But today, with the memory of those events still present, it was assumed that Ukraine, by aligning itself with the Western democracies, would have the unwavering backing of its allies, even if it was not a member of NATO.
Not content with disqualifying the Ukrainian president’s political career — it should not be forgotten that he is indeed a character who went from being a comedian to leading his country — Trump also labeled Zelensky a dictator incapable of resolving his country’s war, reproaching him for not having held democratic elections and questioning his leadership. On this point, I think it’s true that Zelensky cannot be said to have had an impeccable political career, but resisting the onslaught of Russia should, at least, earn him some respect.
Donald Trump has always been fascinated by strong leaders who, like him, project an image of unwavering power and remain steadfast in their positions. His predilection for Vladimir Putin is no secret. This is not the first time he has demonstrated this, nor will it be the last. However, what is now a game-changer is that the new stance of the US president—and, consequently, also that of the Western world—places Ukraine in a vulnerable position.
Leaving the European Union, but above all Ukraine, out of the negotiating table sends clear messages – we must not forget the fact that this is a country that did not provoke the war but suffered the most direct invasion by the Russians.
On the one hand, Zelensky has been transformed from a victim of circumstance and a symbol of resilience into a president overwhelmed by his inability to resolve the conflict and lead his country. On the other hand, as Vice President J.D. Vance already mentioned, Europe was indirectly told that to be at the table, it first had to focus on its own capabilities and strategic independence and define who and how rules the continent once and for all. Many voices, which are also incapable of creating a strong and consolidated consensus, have only created more confusion.
Seeing the strengthening closeness between Putin’s Russia and Trump’s United States, it is not that we are facing a new non-aggression pact as Hitler and Stalin once managed. But what we are witnessing is the end of an era. After so many deaths and so much misery caused, both in Russia and Ukraine, one question remains inevitable and impossible to ignore: “And all for what?”
Further Reading: