Calls for peace amid Russia’s prolonged aggression against Ukraine are increasingly prevalent, yet such calls risk encouraging dangerous concessions. Historical lessons from the Munich Agreement in 1938, when appeasing Adolf Hitler led to devastating consequences, underscore that peace should never come at the cost of ceding territory to aggressors, Margus Tsahkna writes.
Peace. Who does not yearn for peace? In the nearly three years of Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine, calls for peace have become increasingly frequent. If we could only pack it up already. Move on with our lives. Have ‘all these problems finished,’ as pop star Jared Leto recently called from a concert stage.
It is a dangerous trend indicating the West’s confidence is wavering. However, our doubts and the smallest indication of concessions will only inspire Russia to continue on its course of aggression.
Peace is desirable, no doubt about that. However, there are different kinds of peace. Peace can be just and long-lasting or unjust and deceptive, paving the way for further bloodshed. There is no better lesson in history than what happened in 1938 in the capital of Bavaria.
‘Peace for our time,’ British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said after signing the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Édouard Daladier, forcing Czechoslovakia to concede territories inhabited by Sudeten Germans to Germany.
By giving Hitler parts of the territory of another state, they hoped to avoid the outbreak of war. Sadly, naively so. The result was the opposite.
To the dictator spurred on by imperialist ideas, this kind of acquiescence only demonstrated the weakness of the international community and encouraged him to demand even more. Barely a year had passed since the grand declaration of peace when the Second World War broke out, with horrendous consequences for the entire world. Absolutely nothing remained of the peace that was ‘saved’ in Munich.
The international order based on the League of Nations fell apart, millions of people were killed and many countries were subjected to decades of occupation. A brutal price was paid for a premature agreement.
Today we are facing a moment that bears many similarities to 1938. It is still possible for us to avoid the mistakes that were made then.
The aggressor must not gain anything it did not have before
The decisions of 1938 in Munich must remain a lesson and a warning that concessions to an aggressor and Chamberlainian efforts to achieve peace at any cost will not ensure a lasting peace. Attempts to buy oneself freedom by feeding the aggressor with the freedom of other countries are doomed to end in disaster for everyone because the aggressor’s appetite will only grow.
Putin has made no secret of his objectives – he wants to destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty, restore Russia as an empire and end Europe’s security architecture based on NATO and the European Union. This means bringing back defenseless grey areas in Europe, which would mean that Europe would remain under the permanent threat of war.
Right now, there are absolutely no signs to indicate that Putin has abandoned his imperialist aims and genuinely wants peace. Therefore, the slightest hint of potential concessions of Ukraine’s territory is extremely dangerous.
If the aggression results in the aggressor gaining something it did not have before, we must be prepared for the eventuality that it will not stop there. The aggressor will continue to covet and grab more by force of arms, and the hope for peace will disappear just as it did in the late 1930s. Any concessions to Putin would allow Russia to recuperate, recover its strength and continue its bloodshed in the service of its goals.
A just and long-lasting peace is ensured only when the aggressor withdraws to its borders, is held to account for the crime of aggression and pays compensation for the damage it has caused. The defeat of those who have taken up weapons in aggression must be unequivocal. The aggressor must exit the war worse off than it was starting it.
To reach a lasting peace, we must provide military assistance to Ukraine and make Putin understand that it is impossible for him to meet his aims on the battlefield. The foundation for peace is laid on the front, to paraphrase Jaan Poska, the Estonian statesman who successfully led Estonia’s peace negotiations with Soviet Russia in 1920.
However, it is important to see the bigger picture here. The outcome of Russia’s aggression will have a far greater impact than the subsequent fate of Ukraine. If the intention to change borders with weapons is not punished, aggression as a tool of international relations is not completely discredited, and instead, the war ends with gained territories, no country can feel secure in its borders. Russia’s success would upend the existing international order and likely serve as an inspiration for others to use force.
We are already seeing some countries from the ‘axis of evil’ converging around Russia, ready to support Russia in its aggression based on their interests. We are increasingly moving towards a world split between democracies and dictatorships, which is why countries interested in an international order based on democracy, freedoms and rules must remain united in confronting evil.
We must remain confident
Since the start of Russia’s full-scale war, at least 25 different peace proposals have been presented around the world. However, no proposal that does not reference the UN Charter, territorial integrity and sovereignty or clearly define Russia as the aggressor and Ukraine as the victim of the aggression can be taken seriously. We certainly cannot accept peace plans that are discussed without the participation of Ukraine. We cannot allow a situation – as was the case in Munich in 1938 – where the fate of a country is decided behind its back.
Ukrainians have proposed a ten-point peace formula and now, a victory plan, which should serve as a roadmap to the international community for achieving a just peace. As Ukraine has repeatedly stressed in recent weeks – everything is underpinned by the principle of not conceding an inch of territory to the aggressor.
If the Ukrainians remain steadfast in their goals and have the strength to keep fighting, the rest of the world has no excuse for dithering, flinching and desperately seeking ostensible peace.
Russia hopes that if it waits long enough, the world will become weary of supporting Ukraine. However, Russia is not all-powerful – far from it. Let us not fall into the trap of Russian propaganda that tries to convince us that, among other things, its economy is thriving and the sanctions are not working. Russia’s economy is in a much worse state than Moscow lets on. The moment will come when the sanctions and war fatigue ravage Russia to the point of its inevitable collapse.
Many right steps have already been taken. Considerable sanctions and the recent decisions of the EU and the G7 to offer a loan to Ukraine by using frozen Russian assets show that the West can act decisively when it is needed. Let us remember that our economic power exceeds that of Russia by 25 times. The world’s most successful defense alliance is standing behind Ukraine. Ukraine has clear plans and all that is needed is support for Kyiv as it puts them into practice.
The task of the West is to stay the course firmly. This means ramping up sanctions and improving the implementation of existing sanctions, finding ways to turn off the tap of Russia’s oil profits and naturally – giving Ukraine everything it needs to fight the aggressor on the battlefield.
The only path to peace is for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine and remain within its borders. All demands to end the war should be addressed to Moscow and Moscow alone.
Source: ERR
