The outcome of the war in Ukraine is not about borders and sovereignty, it’s about the right of the Ukrainian people to shape their own destiny and to live in a free society, the Estonian honorary consul in California, Jaak Treiman, writes.
Three years ago, as Estonians celebrated Independence Day, Russian troops invaded Ukraine. The assault, which violated all international norms, continues. The initial outrage in many countries has given way to lethargy by some and complicity by others.
The American president, Donald Trump, while slinging mud at Ukraine’s president and propounding one of his “alternate realities” as to who invaded who, urges an end to the fighting. He has initiated negotiations – not between Ukraine and Russia or between Ukraine, Europe and Russia – but between himself and the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin.
Even before negotiations were to begin, he declared that Ukraine would not be permitted to join NATO, and that Russia would not have to return Ukrainian territory. He has refused to identify Russia as the aggressor. What, then, is the deal president Trump hopes to negotiate?
Let’s take a moment to reflect on history.
Playing on people’s fears, prejudices and outright lies, the Nazi Party won Germany’s 1932 election. A year later, persuaded by conservative politicians, Germany’s president appointed Adolf Hitler as chancellor.
Parallels with WWII
By 1938, Germany’s democratic system had ceased to exist. Through legislation, manufactured national emergencies and physical violence, Hitler held power. He proclaimed a need for more living space for Germans. He manufactured grievances about the treatment of ethnic Germans living in Austria and Czechoslovakia.
The Anschluss, the German annexation of Austria, took place in March 1938. Hitler then took aim at the Sudetenland. Hoping to stop Germany’s expansionist aims, Italy, Great Britain and France negotiated with Germany. A treaty was signed in Munich that gave the Sudetenland to Germany. Czechoslovakia had no say in the decision. The British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, returned to London, declaring that their appeasement had brought “peace for our time”.
On 23 August 1939, the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, and Hitler agreed that neither would attack the other. Their agreement contained secret side deals that divided Europe into “spheres of influence”, a euphemism granting each leader power and authority over various countries and regions. World War II began shortly thereafter, as German troops marched into Poland, one of its spheres of influence. Meanwhile, Russia turned its attention to Finland and the Baltic states, territories that Hitler had agreed were within Russia’s sphere of influence.
In June 1941, the alliance collapsed when Germany invaded Russia.
In 1945, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union met at Yalta, Ukraine, and later that year in Potsdam, Germany. The result was an acceptance of the then-existing division of Europe. The Soviet Union’s occupation of the Baltic states and Eastern Europe was rubber-stamped. A face-saving, illusory provision required Russia to permit free elections in the areas under its occupation. Essentially, new spheres of influence were given effect.
Hoping appeasement works is wishful thinking
Déja vu.
Let us assume that the Putin-Trump negotiations are genuine. Let us set aside the amateur negotiating mistake of announcing what one is willing to concede before the negotiations begin. What is the rationale for appeasing Putin and permitting Russia to keep its ill-gotten gains? The thought seems to be that this will satisfy Putin, and Russia will stop coveting its neighbors’ property. The basis for this rationale is never mentioned – perhaps because it rests on nothing more than wishful thinking.
Before the invasion, Russia occupied parts of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine without facing significant international opposition. Like Hitler, this only heightened Putin’s desire for further conquests and implied he could act without consequences. Why would allowing Putin to retain stolen territory this time result in a different outcome? Just think of Mr Chamberlain.
The proposed negotiations between Russia and the United States evoke memories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Given president Trump’s portrayal of Ukraine as a dictatorship, his refusal to call Putin an aggressor, his objection to NATO membership for Ukraine and his position that Ukraine should not reclaim the territory illegally taken from it, one wonders what the negotiations are about and what secret understandings they intend to make.
This struggle is not ultimately about borders and sovereignty. It is about the right of the Ukrainian people to shape their own destiny, to live in a free society and to be able to live a life governed by the principles of the Magna Carta, America’s Bill of Rights, France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is why each of us, as human beings, must support Ukraine.
The opinions in this article are those of the author.
