Following Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria in March of 1938 (the Anschluss), on September 30 of that year a fragile peace was negotiated in Munich. Great Britain and France were willing to cede the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia – an area populated primarily by ethnic Germans bordering Germany – to Germany in exchange for Hitler’s promise of peace. In this hope, the British and French urged the Czechs to accept the “Munich Agreement.” One month later Hitler annexed Sudetenland, and by March of 1939 the rest of Czechoslovakia was subjugated, to the bewilderment of those committed to “peace.”
Most significant was the overriding assumption by Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, that he could dialogue and reason with Hitler. But this policy path in fact telegraphed Britain’s weakness and was a historic failure. In the end, Britain and France crumbled before the German dictator, intent on appeasement rather than risking conflict. But appeasement, alas, only made war a certainty. In the words of one distraught German resistance leader at the time, “Chamberlain saved Hitler.”
As I write, the 2025 Munich Security Conference from earlier this month, with its motto “Peace through Dialogue,” has just concluded. The most significant determination emerging from these meetings is that the U.S. will not guarantee European security. This realization caused French President Emmanuel Macron immediately afterward to call an emergency meeting in Paris for European leaders to discuss U.S.-Russia negotiations without Ukraine and to examine the implications for Europe. And given President Trump’s decision to “dialogue” with the Russians alone, excluding Ukraine from such negotiations, the spirit of the Munich meetings seems to be abundantly confirmed.
Compounding matters, in the days immediately following the conference the world has been treated to a volley of accusations between U.S. President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. The accusations made by Trump – suggesting that Ukraine had started the war and describing Zelensky as a “dictator without elections” who has little to no support among his people – are absurd fabrications. They bear little resemblance to reality, although we know their source. To his credit, former Vice President Mike Pence immediately denounced Trump’s foolish statements, remarking: “Mr. President, Ukraine did not ‘start’ this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.”
Chamberlain would ultimately return home with a “deal,” confidently declaring “peace for our time.” The lesson of history is abundantly clear. Just as Hitler had no intention of pursuing peace following his annexation of Austria and Sudetenland, only months later all of Czechoslovakia fell. Soon thereafter, Poland and the Low Countries were victims of the dictator’s imperial designs. Such designs, tragically, necessitated a “world war.”
The lessons of history extend ominously to us today. Most immediately, the spirit of Munich looms over a U.S.-brokered deal for Ukraine. Who, if not the beleaguered Ukrainian people who have endured crimes against humanity in unthinkable measure for three hellish years, would not be for “peace” negotiations and the end to an unjust war? But a hard truth confronts us: peace is not authentic unless that peace is justly ordered.
As it concerns U.S. foreign policy and the newly-minted administration, the lessons of history are of immediate import because they implicate the U.S. in direct fashion. We might recall, for the record, Ukraine’s independence following the breakup of the Soviet Union as formalized in the Budapest Memorandum and signed by four nations – Russia, Ukraine, Great Britain, and the United States. At the time, Ukraine was home to the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal; as part of the agreement, Ukraine agreed to relinquish this arsenal in exchange for the signatories to “respect the independence of the existing borders of Ukraine” – an independence recognized and confirmed by the United Nations.
One would think that Ukraine’s situation is clear. Surely she wants peace and an end to the war. Surely the last three years have taken their toll: continuous barbaric assault on the civilian population, daily attacks on its cities by drones, missiles, and bombs, relentless assaults on its energy infrastructure, millions of displaced people and refugees, soldiers being killed, injured, and even tortured, its children being deported for purposes of “reeducation,” and the destruction of any and all signs of Ukrainian cultural identity.
Wouldn’t a ceasefire be a top priority for Ukraine? In reality, not for most Ukrainians, who, understandably, are skeptical of Trump’s plan for a “deal.” And this attitude owes to their familiarity with the nature of Russian occupation, the horror and barbarism of Russian troops since 2014 (the annexing of Crimea and Donbas regions), and notably the atrocities inflicted upon the Ukrainian population since the invasion in 2022. The Russian goal has been nothing short of the elimination of any and all vestiges of Ukrainian identity, along with its independence and sovereignty. Does the Trump administration not understand that a ceasefire and negotiations could prove more devastating than the war itself? At stake is nothing less than the nation’s survival.
Trump’s calling card, of course, has been to bring about a rapid end to the war. But he fails to discern the reasons for the war, the very issues at stake, and the history of the conflict. What’s more, he fails to carry the conviction that the U.S. has both a political and moral commitment to Ukraine, based on our nation’s agreement in the 1994 accords. Following the recent “dialogue” between Russian and American envoys in Riyadh, the Kremlin is surely pouring champagne.
The spirit of Munich indeed looms heavily over a U.S.-brokered deal to end the war in Ukraine. In repeating the historic failure of 1938, we commit two unpardonable sins. At one level, we fail to recognize the fact, confirmed in every age and in every cultural context, that “peace” is illegitimate if it is not justly ordered. Where there is no justice, there is no peace, and people perish.
But even more tragically, we also betray a beleaguered, war-torn nation that has been the victim of unjust aggression by a terrorist regime. We thereby fail to use our influence in the world for good, in the spirit of the “Good Samaritan.” We fail to help the traumatized in the context of evil and oppression. This is unforgivable, for when and where we have the wherewithal to assist those in dire need – those traumatized – we are required to do so.
Such is the essence of justice. It is a moral law in the universe, and what is true of individuals is true of nations as well: to whom much has been given, much will be required.
