STRATEGY CENTRAL
For and By Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth – February 20, 2025
Introduction
In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain infamously declared “peace for our time” after signing the Munich Agreement, which handed Nazi Germany control of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. The agreement, an effort to appease Adolf Hitler and avoid war, became a symbol of failed diplomacy, as Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia six months later and launched World War II the following year.
Nearly a century later, former President Donald Trump’s approach to Vladimir Putin raises unsettling comparisons to Chamberlain’s dealings with Hitler. Trump’s recent rhetoric on Ukraine, coupled with reports of his direct engagement with Putin and statements questioning America’s stake in the conflict, echoes the logic of appeasement that dominated European diplomacy in the 1930s, but it also moves well beyond simply seeking peace at any price.
Echoes of Munich: Negotiating Over Others’ Heads
Chamberlain’s fatal mistake in Munich was agreeing to Hitler’s territorial demands without Czechoslovakia’s participation. The Czechoslovaks were forced to accept the terms dictated by Germany, Britain, France, and Italy—an agreement that disregarded their sovereignty and emboldened Hitler to push further.
Trump’s recent engagement with Putin follows a similar pattern. According to reports, he spoke with Putin for 90 minutes without informing Ukraine beforehand, leaving European allies to learn about the call afterward. His administration’s stance that Ukraine should not expect to regain its pre-2014 borders or NATO membership mirrors Chamberlain’s rationale in 1938. Just as Britain and France rationalized sacrificing Czechoslovakia to avoid war, Trump’s approach suggests prioritizing a quick settlement over Ukraine’s long-term sovereignty. There are similarities, but examining the facts reveals that Chamberlin and Trump’s strategies differ.
Realism and Apparent Appeasement: A Smoke Screen For A Different Strategy?
Chamberlain justified Munich as a pragmatic move to maintain peace, arguing that Britain was unprepared for war. Likewise, Trump and his allies have framed their Ukraine policy as “realism,” dismissing Kyiv’s goals as unattainable and emphasizing that Europe has more at stake than the United States. They have gone so far as to leave Ukraine in a terrible negotiating position with Russia by denying the return of land or NATO membership before negotiations have begun.
British leaders in 1938 believed that appeasing Hitler would satisfy his ambitions, allowing Britain to avoid a larger conflict. Similarly, Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Putin on terms that favor Russia reflects an assumption that conceding now will prevent escalation or a costly dragging out of the war. However, as history has demonstrated, appeasement often emboldens aggressors rather than deterring them.
Both Chamberlain and Trump believed they could negotiate with authoritarian leaders, believing personal diplomacy could temper expansionist ambitions. Chamberlain saw Hitler as a reasonable statesman with whom he could strike a bargain. He ignored warnings from Winston Churchill and others that Hitler’s goals extended beyond the Sudetenland. Trump similarly ignored warnings from seasoned U.S. foreign policy veterans, congressional leaders, and media critics.
Trump has repeatedly praised Putin’s “strength” and suggested that a settlement in Ukraine could be achieved through direct talks. By emphasizing diplomacy without credible deterrence, he risks following Chamberlain’s path—underestimating an autocrat’s broader ambitions and weakening the West’s resolve in the process. However, Trump has gone beyond simple appeasement to openly favor Putin over America’s allies and partners. Chamberlain did not side with Hitler, nor did he grasp the extent of Hitler’s ruthless desire to expand German power. Trump seems to comprehend Putin, praising him while disparaging Zelenskyy and European leaders. This deliberate choice to favor Putin indicates that Trump values a close relationship between the US and Russia over that of allies and Ukraine. Chamberlain did not make the mistake of siding with Hitler and Trump does not believe he is making a mistake to side with Putin.
As Donald Trump positions himself as the dealmaker capable of ending the war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees an opportunity to turn Trump’s rhetoric into a strategic advantage. Trump’s persistent criticisms of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his lack of condemnation of Putin, and his eagerness to negotiate with Russia raise concerns about whether his approach would lead to peace or embolden Moscow’s ambitions. Peace by a U.S.-Russian union would be no peace at all. It would be capitulation and an invitation for Putin’s next bold move against NATO.
Neville & Trump’s Positions Compared
Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy was driven by the trauma of World War I, which left millions dead and Europe in ruins. The exhausted British public largely supported efforts to prevent another conflict at almost any cost. Chamberlain believed peace could be preserved by satisfying Hitler’s territorial ambitions. The Munich Agreement, however, only encouraged Hitler to pursue further conquests, including the invasion of Poland in 1939, which triggered the global conflict Chamberlain sought to avoid.
Fast forward to today, and similar concerns emerge regarding former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to Russian President Vladimir Putin amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Trump's repeated admiration for Putin, his overt skepticism of NATO’s relevance, and his transactional perspective on nation-state relations have raised alarms among political analysts and international relations experts. Trump’s recent claims suggesting he could swiftly bring an end to the war in Ukraine have only heightened these concerns, with critics fearing that such a resolution would come at Ukraine’s expense, reminiscent of Chamberlain’s concessions to Hitler.
Trump has frequently placed blame for the war on Ukraine itself, echoing Kremlin narratives. In a recent statement from Mar-a-Lago, he told Zelenskyy, "You should have never started it," effectively rewriting the history of the conflict. This rhetoric aligns with Putin’s long-standing justification that Ukraine, not Russia, provoked the war—a claim dismissed by Western allies and historical evidence showing that Russia launched an unprovoked invasion in 2022.
Trump has also criticized Ukraine’s refusal to negotiate a settlement with Russia, implying that had he been in office, he could have brokered a deal that would have prevented the war. His assertion that Ukraine should have "made a deal" contradicts the reality that Russia's demands include Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, and the recognition of Russian control over annexed territories, concessions that Kyiv and its Western backers consider unacceptable. Calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” is probably the best indication that Trump does not intend to mind Ukraine's interests in any negotiation with Russia.
Chamberlain’s policy failures are now viewed as a cautionary tale of how short-term diplomatic gains can result in long-term geopolitical disasters. Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland was merely the start of his expansionist ambitions. Similarly, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 indicate Putin’s broader intentions to reassert Russian influence over former Soviet territories. Critics contend that Trump’s conciliatory attitude toward Putin jeopardizes these ambitions, much like Chamberlain’s approach emboldened Hitler.
Trump’s supporters contend that his approach is pragmatic, aimed at avoiding unnecessary U.S. entanglement in foreign conflicts. However, opponents argue that failing to stand firmly against aggression encourages further destabilization. The parallels with Chamberlain’s appeasement are stark: Both leaders faced authoritarian regimes with expansionist tendencies, and both sought to prioritize immediate peace over potential future conflict.
Chamberlain’s legacy serves as a reminder that appeasement often comes at a steep price. Trump's legacy may be a reminder that siding with a megalomaniacal authoritarian with an expansionist agenda also has a high price. Chamberlin’s misjudgment of Hitler’s ambitions was catastrophic. Trump’s support of Putin not only emboldens him but will also be seen by China and traditional U.S. allies as the end of American support for democracy and a shift toward backing authoritarian regimes. This gesture will be well received in both China and Russia but will signal a retreat from America by the rest of the Western world. China has been trying to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies for almost twenty years and will undoubtedly take the backing of Putin as a green light to use force to expand its control. In this new world of U.S. – Russia – and China alignment, expansionist wars are inevitable.
Ukraine’s Loss is Putin’s Gain
Putin appears to view Trump as both impatient and susceptible to flattery. The Russian leader has carefully crafted an image of strength while simultaneously portraying Ukraine as weak and corrupt. As part of his charm offensive, Putin recently released Marc Fogel, an American citizen imprisoned in Russia, a move interpreted as an attempt to cultivate goodwill with Trump.
Putin understands that prolonging the war may be to his advantage, as fatigue sets in among Ukraine’s Western allies. However, the possibility of Trump pressuring Ukraine into a rushed peace deal could be even more beneficial. Such an outcome would allow Russia to retain its territorial gains, lift sanctions, and weaken NATO’s commitment to Eastern Europe.
By engaging in direct negotiations with Trump, Putin effectively sidelines Ukraine and its European allies, allowing Russia to assert greater influence over the conflict's resolution. This shift not only legitimizes Russia's actions on the global stage but also undermines NATO's unity and strength, potentially leading to a reconfiguration of European security dynamics in Russia's favor.
Furthermore, Trump's adoption of Kremlin-aligned narratives, such as criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and attributing blame for the war to Ukraine, reinforces Russia's propaganda efforts and weakens international support for Kyiv. This alignment may result in the easing of economic sanctions imposed on Russia, bolstering its economy and military capabilities. Additionally, the potential reduction of U.S. military aid to Ukraine could diminish Ukrainian resistance, enabling Russia to consolidate its territorial gains and expand its sphere of influence without significant opposition.
The Diplomatic Fallout
Trump’s statements and policy shifts have alarmed America’s European allies. His willingness to negotiate directly with Moscow while sidelining Ukraine from key diplomatic discussions has led to concerns that he might strike a deal unfavorable to Kyiv, and threatening to NATO. The recent U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, from which Ukraine and NATO members were excluded, suggest a growing alignment between Trump’s approach and Russia’s objectives.
President Donald Trump's decision to align the United States with Russia against Ukraine and NATO has precipitated significant diplomatic repercussions. This policy shift has strained transatlantic relations, as European allies express alarm over being excluded from critical negotiations concerning European security. The unilateral approach undermines the collaborative framework that has underpinned Western alliances for decades, leading to a sense of betrayal among NATO members and raising questions about the alliance's future cohesion.
Within Ukraine, this realignment has provoked profound concern and resistance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has adamantly rejected any peace agreements made without Ukraine's direct involvement, emphasizing the country's sovereignty and right to self-determination. The exclusion of Ukrainian and European representatives from “U.S.-Russia” negotiations not only undermines the legitimacy of the peace process in the eyes of those most affected but also risks deepening divisions and prolonging the conflict. Putin has praised these talks as a "first step" in normalizing relations between Moscow and Washington, indicating his approval of the current trajectory.
Trump’s decisions have raised significant concerns among both traditional and new U.S. partners regarding America's commitment to defending and supporting them against Chinese and Russian aggression. European allies, in particular, are alarmed by the administration's apparent disengagement from collective security agreements and its transactional approach to the NATO alliance. This shift has raised questions about the reliability of U.S. defense commitments, prompting some nations to reassess their security strategies and call for immediate increases in their defense spending.
In response to these developments, countries like Denmark have announced significant increases in their military budgets, aiming to enhance their defense capabilities independently. This move reflects a broader trend among U.S. allies to take greater responsibility for their own security in light of perceived unpredictability in American foreign policy. The administration's emphasis on burden-sharing and its willingness to reconsider longstanding commitments have introduced a degree of uncertainty, compelling allies to question whether the U.S. will uphold its traditional role as a guarantor of their security against adversarial actions from nations such as China and Russia.
Trump’s Strategy and Its Consequences
Beyond Ukraine, Trump’s rhetoric threatens to reshape U.S. foreign policy in ways that could undermine longstanding alliances and partnerships. His repeated attacks on NATO and skepticism about continued military aid to Kyiv have raised alarms throughout Europe. Moscow has seized on his statements, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov praising Trump as the "only Western leader" who understands that NATO expansion was a key factor in the conflict.
Domestically, Trump’s claims have been met with scrutiny. His assertion that Zelenskyy’s approval rating is as low as 4% has been widely debunked, with Ukrainian polling showing much higher levels of support. This aligns with a pattern in which Trump’s statements on Ukraine have frequently mirrored Russian propaganda.
Internationally, powerful and economically disadvantaged nations are increasingly questioning the reliability of the United States as a partner under President Donald Trump's administration. The abrupt suspension of foreign aid, exemplified by the 90-day freeze that disrupted critical programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has had severe consequences, including the closure of clinics and layoffs of health workers in regions heavily reliant on U.S. assistance. Such actions have made these nations doubt U.S. commitments’ consistency, goodwill, and good faith, prompting them to seek alternative alliances and support systems.
In response to the perceived unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy, many of these countries are beginning to diversify their international relationships. For instance, some Caribbean nations view the U.S. aid freeze as an opportunity to reduce dependency on American support and explore partnerships with other global powers such as China and Russia. Others, including Germany, France, and England, will eventually follow this path. This strategic shift will enhance their economic security and resilience, mitigating the risks associated with reliance on a single, unpredictable, and rent-seeking America.
From Chamberlain to Trump: The Cost of Misreading History
The 1938 Munich Agreement has been widely condemned as a diplomatic failure that strengthened Hitler’s position and made war inevitable. Today, critics warn that Trump’s approach to Putin could lead to similar consequences—undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, emboldening Russia’s territorial ambitions, and signaling American acquiescence to other authoritarian regimes.
Trump insists that his priority is peace, much like Chamberlain did in 1938. However, the lesson of Munich is clear: trading away the security of smaller nations for short-term stability often invites further conflict. As history has shown, peace deals built on appeasement or capitulation rarely endure. The choice to support the aggressive nation's expansionist agenda is even more detrimental to peace.
Trump, by his own account, seems to believe that abandoning NATO and compelling Ukraine's capitulation in favor of a partnership with Russia could yield certain strategic and economic benefits for the United States. In the President’s view, such a realignment might reduce direct military expenditures associated with European defense commitments, as European nations would need to assume greater responsibility for their own security. This shift aligns with the Trump administration's emphasis on burden-sharing, potentially allowing the U.S. to reallocate resources to domestic priorities or other international interests. Additionally, Trump believes that fostering closer ties with Russia could open avenues for economic collaboration, particularly in energy markets and natural resource sectors, potentially leading to favorable trade agreements and investment opportunities.
However, this approach carries significant geopolitical risks. Abandoning longstanding alliances could undermine global perceptions of U.S. reliability, prompting allies to seek new partnerships and diminishing American influence on the world stage. Moreover, forcing Ukraine's capitulation may embolden adversarial actions by other nations, destabilizing international norms regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity. Such a policy shift could also create a power vacuum in Europe, potentially leading to increased regional conflicts and economic uncertainty, which may ultimately adversely affect global markets and U.S. strategic interests.
While he frames himself as a master negotiator capable of brokering peace, Trump’s rhetoric and actions suggest a willingness to accommodate Russian demands at Ukraine’s expense. By undermining Zelenskyy and embracing Moscow’s framing of the war, Trump is providing Putin with an opportunity to shape the conflict’s resolution on Russian terms. This is a clear shift away from promoting democracy, stability, and support for the rule of law. “Peace Through Strength," as the Trump Administration claims as its primary foreign policy approach, means that a robust military and economic posture is a deterrent against potential adversaries, thereby maintaining peace. This concept, rooted in historical precedent, suggests that demonstrating formidable power discourages aggression from other nations. In short, strong nations preserve peace and stability by discouraging potential threats through a position of strength.
“Peace through Strength” should not be confused with “Might makes Right." “Might makes Right” suggests that those with power are justified in their actions solely because of their strength. By siding with Putin, Trump implies that Russia is justified in its actions against Ukraine simply due to its greater Power. This is not strength as a means of deterrence; rather, it is a strength that justifies conquest. Power alone validates actions. This distinction highlights Trump’s revealed preference for a strategy of “Might makes Right.” It might be a realist position, but it is not a plea for peace. Rather, it rationalizes more war. By deed and word, Trump favors the accumulation of power and that by possessing it, he is correct in however he sees fit to use it.
“Might makes Right" is central to Trump's foreign policy as a personal inclination. While Chamberlain accommodated Hitler, he did not align with Hitler’s cause. Trump is not merely accommodating Putin; he is aligning with him. Similar to Chamberlain, perhaps, but not the same. This choice will mark a complete remaking of the United States foreign policy and an end to the perception of the United States as the world’s leading democracy and guarantor of peace and stability through the rule of law. Trump’s foreign policy will stand a high chance of mirroring Chamberlain for the outcome, a peace to end all peace.
Works Cited
"How Vladimir Putin Plans to Play Donald Trump." The Economist, February 18, 2025.
"U.S. Envoy Visits Ukraine After Trump Blames Zelenskyy for Russia's Invasion." CBS News, February 19, 2025.
"Fact-Checking Donald Trump's Claims About War in Ukraine." BBC Verify, February 19, 2025.
"Putin Hails US-Russia Talks as Zelensky-Trump Spat Deepens." KTEN News, February 19, 2025.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis. W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Simon & Schuster, 1960.
Snyder, Timothy. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books, 2018.
Applebaum, Anne. Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. Doubleday, 2020.
Gessen, Masha. The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia. Riverhead Books, 2017.
Wilson, Andrew. Ukraine Crisis: What It Means for the West. Yale University Press, 2014.
Comentários