From Munich to Kyiv

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
George Santayana

In 1936, Adolf Hitler sent in German troops to occupy the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. European states did nothing.

In 1938, France and Great Britain (the Allies) negotiated the absorption of Czechoslovakia by the German Reich at Munich as well as the Anschluss with Austria.

Again, the Allies did nothing, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London waving the agreement and claiming that he had brought peace in our time.

In 1939 Germany invaded Poland and World War II began, costing over 60 million lives and bringing about the near destruction of much of Europe and Japan.

Some historians claim that, had the Allies put a stop to Germany in 1936 or 1938 the war could have been avoided. Others have praised Chamberlain for buying the Allies precious time to rearm and prepare for the war that was inevitable.

Hitler bullied the Allies into accepting his demands and became increasingly emboldened each time they backed down. He was an irrational leader who sought to achieve German rule over Europe and who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals.

Fast forward to today.

Vladimir Putin is also a dictator who seeks to recreate the former USSR and reestablish its dominance over Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

He has used Western fear of a possible nuclear war arising from a direct confrontation with NATO as his trump card in getting Western acceptance to his making Ukraine part of Russia again.

Many have compared today’s scenario with Munich in 1938.

But in contrast with Munich, the West has not given in to Putin. Conscious of the risks inherent in a direct confrontation, Western governments are holding firm in not pressuring Ukraine to give in to Russian demands without putting boots on the ground. At the time of writing, Putin seems to be indicating that he wants to give diplomacy more time.

In reality, he is between a rock and a hard place.

Should he decide to invade, the West will impose crippling sanctions including, one would hope, freezing all his personal assets in the West as well as those of his oligarchical supporters, block all Russian financial transactions in global markets, and end agreements whereby the West buys Russian raw materials, including oil and gas.

This would cripple the Russian economy and erode the support he gets using his wealth to buy the allegiance of the military and his cronies. As well, it could well destabilize the country economically and socially and lead to significant domestic unrest and a potential fall from grace. 

Germany has already said that in the face of an invasion it would shut down the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that feeds German industry and consumers with natural gas from Russia. It remains to be seen how the average German consumer would react to increased prices or gas shortages in winter. 

Unlike in 1938, today any spark can ignite a nuclear holocaust. Technology has provided many tools with which the West can confront Russia without risking a nuclear war.

Bank accounts can be frozen, systems can be hacked, trade can be curtailed, and Russian Muslim minorities (Chechens, for example) can be armed through underground channels to create social and political unrest in the country and dampen enthusiasm for foreign adventures.

Are there dangers?

Of course there are.

Putin is a narcissistic dictator whose ego is on the line should he not get the West to bend to his will. But the fact that he has decided to give negotiations more time may indicate some hesitancy on the part of his generals to engage in adventurism that comes with a high degree of risk.

Should an invasion come, Russian political and military leaders could be accused of war crimes with all that this entails. Ukrainian military and paramilitary forces could launch guerrilla campaigns that would cost thousands of Russian lives. The memory of the Russian debacle in Afghanistan in the 1980’s cannot be too far removed from the minds of many Russians. Hence, comparing today’s scenario to Munich in 1938 may well not be historically correct. Rather, it may well be the West fighting a 21st century war with 21st century tools. Replacing boots on the ground with international law and non-lethal technology would be a significant change in military doctrine.

And it could work.

[email protected]
 

Keep reading: Whither Venezuelan Democracy?

Edition: Estefanía Cardeña