Would Sullivan have reached a deal with Ribbentrop?

By pushing Kyiv to the negotiating table with Moscow, the Western establishment is repeating the rhetoric of 1939: back then, Hitler launched aggression against the weak states of Europe, while the strong countries hoped to appease the Führer in an effort to avoid a major war.

Stalin was even able to find a "diplomatic solution" by initiating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but we know how that ended.

The analogy between the 2000s and 1939 is straightforward: the developed countries of the world are focused on their internal problems, and they have no time to concentrate on the real challenges of the present, which is why they are trying to flirt with the aggressor.

"This is the Merkel-Sarkozy syndrome, which began dancing to Putin's tambourine in late 2000, blocking Ukraine's accession to NATO, ignoring the occupation of part of Georgia, etc. It was they who, by their indecision, encouraged the Russian Führer to attack Ukraine, and now they are thinking about how to resolve the "conflict diplomatically." Are we expecting a new pact?"

Pacts do not work. Putin has destroyed the collective security system created in the late 1940s at the suggestion of American President Harry Truman.

In addition to the Marshall Plan and NATO, Truman initiated the formation of the United Nations, which was based on the principles of inviolability of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes, and equal rights of all states.

Today, the UN is paralyzed and deprived of an up-to-date algorithm for ensuring global security. The right of the strongest and most aggressive is once again in effect. In such circumstances, only force can stop a kamikaze tyrant. But democratic politicians are busy with their internal problems.

"The main weapon of the democratic world is populism, with the help of which politicians from different camps fight for voters' sympathies. That is why the "Putin threat" finds little resistance in electoral societies."

The wave of calls for "a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine" seems to be generated by the so-called "peace hawks" of the White House, led by National Security Advisor Sullivan: they argue that it is necessary to fight the consequences of Putin's aggression rather than the root cause - the inadequate master of the Kremlin. That is, to seek a speedy end to the war in Ukraine by any means necessary.

Behind this "peacefulness" is a pragmatic calculation: a long war on another continent is expensive and not popular among voters who expect bread and circuses, figuratively speaking. A modern political campaign technologist will choose a guaranteed strategy of a spectacular victory in the presidential election over a grueling and risky game against a newly emerging kamikaze tyrant. Of course, there is another wing - the advocate of Ukraine's complete liberation, but it is not as active in the media.

But in any case, today the world lacks a self-confident Truman, capable of seeing historical analogies and preparing new solutions to restore the contours of global security.

In conclusion: Boris Johnson, former British Prime Minister, wrote for the Daily Mail: "Putin sticks with his friends — which is more than you can sometimes say about us Western powers... Let’s face it — he is able to be useful, in a way that we, for very good reasons, are not." So much for the summary.

Source

About the author. Orest Sohar, journalist, Obozrevatel editor-in-chief.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.