By Patrick F. Cannon
On September 30, 1938, when I was six months old and frankly didn’t notice, Adolph Hitler for Germany, Benito Mussolini for Italy, Edouard Daladier for France, and Neville Chamberlain for Great Britain signed an agreement which would cede the German-speaking Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia to Germany. The latter were not a party to the negotiations. They were given the option of accepting the agreement, or going to war with Germany
Chamberlain also got Herr Hitler to sign a paper that bound Germany and Great Britain never to go to war with each other. When he got home, he brandished his letter and claimed he had helped guarantee “peace in our time.” Winston Churchill, who had been raising the alarm about Hitler for years, commented: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You choose dishonour. You will have war.”
The Czechs, no longer having allies, chose to accept an agreement they had no part in, and the Germans duly occupied the Sudetenland on September 30, 1938. Now helpless, the Czechs could only watch as the rest of their country was occupied in March of 1939, beginning foreign occupations that would last for 50 years. While Britain and France abandoned the Czechs, they did guarantee to come to Poland’s aid if Germany invaded, which they did six months later. The ensuing World War II caused the death of approximately 70 million soldiers and civilians.
It appears that initial negotiations to end the current war in Ukraine will be between the US and Russia, with other interested parties, perhaps even including Ukraine, brought in later. When it’s all over, and Russia’s Putin adds more of Ukraine to his former grab of the Crimea, perhaps President Trump will deplane at Andrews Air Force Base, and trumpet for all to hear that he has brought “peace in our time.”
Copyright 2025, Patrick F. Cannon
cannonnadedotcom 
Ukraine? Sounds like a hostile takeover.
Does history provide lessons we can learn? I doubt it.
That was then, this is now.
History tells us, for example, that socialist governments (i.e., large, top-down bureaucracies) end in failure. Still, people gravitate to them as an ideal governance model.
The problem is, historical lessons or not, humanity persists in doing its own thing, even when counter-productive.
The Bear won the Super Bowl in 1985. Have they learned how to do it again? And if they followed the same model, would they still win?
The current peace negotiations are puzzling.
They contradict historical expectations of how such discussions should proceed and who should be the primary stakeholders.
Are the negotiations irregular or are the expectations?
Ukraine has a weak bargaining position. It has decisively lost territory to Russia in the war and is steadily losing its ability to continue fighting. Its country and infrastructure are in shambles, and it has lost a critical percentage of its population.
Its erstwhile EU allies voice moral support but dither in acting decisively. None of the EU countries really has the ability to respond militarily on its own, a situation brought about by design to prevent repeating past world wars.
NATO represents EU’s military strength, but it relies almost totally on the US. Now the US, which has financed Ukraine’s military during the war, has grown frustrated by Ukraine’s losing effort and by EU’s smug complacency in letting the US bear the burden.
What to do?
The US, which has little stake in Ukraine’s territorial dispute, has spent billions to finance the war and knows additional billions would only prolong the misery. It is also running out of money. Aside from humanitarian considerations, the US has little interest in Ukraine except for its natural resources.
The EU for its part has been unreliable, despite its larger stake, and shows little sign of changing.
So, a hostile takeover?
Take control and strike a deal with Russia that would:
1) End the fighting,
2) Allow what remains of Ukraine to recover,
3) Enable the US to access Ukraine’s mineral wealth,
4) Promote cooperation with Russia in developing energy resources in the Arctic and perhaps elsewhere desirable to both parties, and
5) Possibly defuse the tensions and distrust among Russia, the US and Europe.
Like a takeover target, Ukraine at this point has little leverage to oppose such an outcome. It may need to swallow its national pride, but the alternatives would be much worse for its population if the war were allowed to continue. It would be better to be “owned” in some way by the US than ruled by Russia.
Ukraine would be a bit like the classic Peter Sellers movie, The Mouse that Roared, in which the impoverished European Duchy of Grand Fenwick seeks economic protection by declaring war on the US and then surrendering.
Is this scenario realistic? Can Russia be trusted? Maybe, but probably not. Is it politically viable in the US? There will be the usual indignant protests and media hostility. Europe will grumble but may eventually accept it and its own responsibilities in the region. The centuries-old ethnic frictions between Ukrainians and Russians will continue.
Adam Smith, the grand-daddy of capitalism, argued that economic self-interest actually benefits society as a whole. Capitalism works but people hate it.
Perhaps the same is true of foreign policy? So far American altruism hasn’t produced the expected outcomes Will American self-interest?
If he succeeds, will Trump be praised as a hero?
Not a chance. In our conventional wisdom, we are suspicious of winners, unless they are underdogs or oppressed minorities. Trump doesn’t qualify. Ditto Musk and his Musketeers.
Anyway, such are the idle musings on a very cold February morning.
LikeLike
Birds of a feather, flock together. We don’t really need Ukraine’s minerals or Russia’s oil. Europe does need to stand up, because Ukraine is just first on Putin’s list.
LikeLike
Yeah, well, of course Europe needs to “stand up.” I think they’ve gotten that message loud and clear. But even if they grow a pair and confront Russia, they can’t do it without the United States, at least not in the foreseeable future, and it’s clear that ship has sailed. Enfeebled Europe has zero leverage against Putin. That is abundantly clear. Trump is the only thing holding Russia back and is the only reason they’ll be drawn to the negotiating table. Biden’s weakness and his administration’s equivocation are what gave Putin the green light to invade in the first place and what kept the awful war going without a resolution. The hysterical media keeps bawling that Trump gave away the store by taking Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table and conceding territory that Russia now holds. So what would they have the US do? Threaten Russia with nuclear annihilation? Send in US troops? And for what? It’s not our battle. In Chamberlain’s day, England had an “existential” stake in German’s containment. Does the US have such a stake in whether Ukraine is Russian or not (and a good part of that country’s population are Russian)?
Trump’s deal making may come to nought. But as he’s done in Gaza, he’s already changed the paradigm. Beachfront condos may seem absurd, but Hamas has no presence in that scenario. Whether we need the oil or minerals is irrelevant, but those are things Russia understands. If you’re going to communicate in a language, you better get the grammar right,
LikeLike
I get the Realpolitik. I also recall that Russia invaded Ukraine. Now, Ukraine won’t be part of the settlement. What happens if Russia invades a NATO member? We better pull out soon.
LikeLike
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine didn’t occur in a vacuum (I sent you a link via email that provides background). The US has sent billions to Ukraine, much of which has disappeared. Ukraine was offered a deal to repay with joint development of its natural resources. Zelensky instead of continuing discussions got his nose out of joint. Now he’s got people pissed off and Putin enjoying the scene. Maybe he doesn’t know who his friends are, or maybe that cover on Vogue magazine has gone to his head? Does he really expect to get territory back and join NATO? Does he think Russia is going to pay reparations? Or is he just putting on a comedy act? It’s quite possible that extremists in his government are putting a gun to his head. As for NATO, Russia might like to recoup a few of those “captive nations” that are members, but realistically it’s not going to happen. Putin will push as far as he can but he’s not suicidal. Besides, that domino theory got us into a real mess in Vietnam. I don’t recall Trump threatening to pull out of NATO, but he does want EU countries to pay their share. What do they say in Chicago, belly up to the bar? Cheers!
LikeLike