On Oct. 5, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law the annexation of the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, laying claim to roughly 15% of Ukraine’s total territory, as well as Europe’s largest nuclear plant. While Russian forces don’t currently have military control over all of those regions, Putin’s government has threatened a retaliatory nuclear strike if Russia’s claims on Ukrainian soil are challenged, stating that any attack on the annexed regions will be considered an attack on Russia. 

History buffs may recall that the same strategy was leveraged by Nazi Germany less than a century ago. Back then, the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was to Germany as Ukraine is to Russia currently. The people spoke a very similar language and shared cultural and historical commonalities with Germany, just as Ukraine does with Russia. Both in the 1930s and today, the larger nation laid claim to the smaller, more vulnerable one, citing these commonalities as legitimate reasons for the annexation of a sovereign state.

In the 1930s, the US was making every effort to stay out of the conflict, not wanting to repeat the Great War. The United Kingdom at the time was led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who likewise wanted to avoid war at all costs. Chamberlain was applauded by the British people for his negotiation of the Munich Agreement, along with France and Italy, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany in an effort to avoid war. 

Adolf Hitler himself had declared that this would be his last claim in northern Europe. The leaders of the UK, France, and Italy thought that yielding the Sudetenland would “appease” Hitler, and this policy of bending the knee in favor of short-term peace became known as appeasement. 

One outspoken critic of appeasement was Winston Churchill. He rightly predicted that Hitler wouldn’t stop at taking over the Sudetenland, calling the Munich Agreement “a total and unmitigated defeat.” Once Germany occupied Norway in May of 1940, a debate was held in the UK Parliament which resulted in Churchill’s appointment as Prime Minister in a coalition government. He quickly made steps to get tough on the Nazis, and eventually turned the war around in favor of the Allies.

For Churchill, winning the war was the primary goal. His eyes were on the future, and he strove to save life and promote peace on that timeline. Sometimes, we have to trade potential short-term sacrifice to avoid a much greater catastrophe. EMU is, to the core, an institution advocating for peace. Can we call ourselves lovers of peace in the present if we aren’t willing to accept responsibility for violence in the past and future?

If a realist like Winston Churchill had been leading the policy toward Germany earlier on, the war might not have been so terrible, and Nazi Germany might not have been so formidable an opponent. As Putin aspires to emulate the strategy of bit-by-bit conquest, the world once again needs leaders who will not tolerate the conquest of sovereign states by despots. 

Soon, Russia will ask for peace negotiations which include the recognition of these annexed regions as Russian territory by the United States. If the United States accepts these terms, we will let every other world power know that they can invade vulnerable foreign lands without resistance from the broader world. Let’s keep history in mind, both in the public square today and at the ballot box this November.