Latest news with #MunichAgreement
Toronto Star
a day ago
- Politics
- Toronto Star
The Trump-Putin summit was a disaster. And things could still get worse
Watching the Alaskan summit last Friday, historians remember the 1938 Munich Agreement, or the Yalta Conference in 1945: both which serve as cautionary tales in appeasing dictators, selling out smaller states, and ignoring the principles of collective security. While the contexts and players are different, the melody is frighteningly familiar. The only positive result from the Trump-Putin meeting is that no deal was made, at least not publicly. What precisely the two discussed remains in question, but given the mercurial nature of Trump's foreign policy, Ukrainians worry that their interests were not well represented by American officials. Opinion articles are based on the author's interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. More details
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The butchering of Ukraine's borders will haunt Europe for generations
Other borders were redrawn, too. Hungary has never forgotten that the 1920 Treaty of Trianon resulted in it losing two-thirds of its pre-war territory. This 'Trianon trauma' remains a potent political issue today. The two newly independent states of Poland and Czechoslovakia immediately went to war over their border in 1919, one of many violent border conflicts that followed the well-intentioned redrawing of national boundaries. Under Hitler, Germany pursued aggressive territorial revisionism, beginning with the annexation of Austria and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia through the 1938 Munich Agreement, forcing the smaller state to cede territory to appease a larger aggressor. That agreement emboldened Nazi expansionism, culminating in the Second World War. After the war, Europe's borders were redrawn again, notably by reducing Germany's size and shifting the Polish state westward. Millions of Germans were expelled from lands in the east that were handed over to Poland and the Soviet Union. The new border remained a point of intense political controversy in both East and West Germany. This has never led to a reopening of armed conflict because, unlike Ukraine, Germany was the aggressor in the conflict that lost it so much territory. Nonetheless, in West Germany, powerful groups of expellees, known as Vertriebene, were able to lobby politicians to a degree. It was only with Chancellor Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970s and the eventual reunification in 1990 that Germany fully accepted the permanence of these post-war borders. In the East, where I was born, a quarter of the population consisted of displaced Germans from the former eastern territories in the 1950s. My family was a typical example: three of my four grandparents were from East Prussia, Pomerania and the Sudetenland, respectively. The reason they were never resentful about having lost their homes was a powerful mixture of guilt and repression. Given their nation's crimes in Eastern Europe, they felt they didn't have much of a point to complain, and the regime, keen to keep good relations with its direct neighbours and especially the Soviet Union, enforced this narrative. Few expellees in East Germany spoke about their loss for three generations, repressing resentment until it petered out. This is not a model that would work for Ukraine, nor one that it should be subjected to. Regardless of Russian propaganda, it didn't start this war. By suggesting that Ukraine could cede land to Russia to end it, Trump is proposing the dismantling of a fundamental principle of the European order: that borders cannot be changed by force. What guarantee do smaller nations, such as the Baltic states, have that their sovereignty will be protected? Unlike Ukraine, they are part of Nato, but with US backing not as rock-solid as it once was, Russia feels emboldened. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived for Friday's summit with a t-shirt imprinted with the letters CCCP, the Russian acronym for the USSR – hardly a subtle hint of Moscow's ambitions. Borders matter – not just as lines on a map that divvy up resources and land, but as symbols of sovereignty, identity, and peace. Changing them by force is a path Europe has walked before. History tells us we should tread lightly.
Globe and Mail
5 days ago
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
The Trump-Putin summit isn't Munich, 1938. It's Paris, 1973
In the run-up to Friday's meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the most widely cited historical analogy has been the Munich Agreement of 1938. Adolf Hitler made territorial demands of Czechoslovakia and, after quick negotiations – to which Czechoslovakia was not invited – France and Britain agreed to give Germany what it wanted. Instead of sating Hitler, it whetted his appetite. After intensive lobbying from panicked European leaders, Mr. Trump has spent the past few days trying to reassure them that Munich is not in the cards. He has in fact been talking down expectations for any outcome at all. The get-together, he has repeatedly said, is just to set the table for what he hopes will be a future meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders. Analysis: Trump and Putin in Alaska is a study in contrasts In war-weary Kyiv, Ukrainians view Trump-Putin summit with skepticism Mr. Trump has spoken about punishing Russia if it isn't willing to accept a ceasefire, but such statements have been rare, and action even rarer. He's also always uncomfortable calling Russia the aggressor. Most importantly, he's reluctant to treat Ukraine as an ally, and generally averse to the idea that assisting in its defence is a U.S. obligation. The United States is still providing weapons to Ukraine, but now only if the Europeans pay. And while Mr. Trump wants to be hailed as a peacemaker – ideally with a Nobel Peace Prize – he doesn't appear to be overly concerned with sweating the details of what happens after the awards ceremony. That's why I'm concerned that the White House is on a path not to Munich, 1938, but Paris, 1973. Not a quick sellout. A steady disengagement. On Jan. 27, 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed, 'ending' the Vietnam War. Negotiations had been between U.S. national security adviser Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese Politburo member Le Duc Tho. The treaty allowed tens of thousands of North Vietnamese troops to remain in occupation of large parts of South Vietnam. That was obviously not something South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu wanted, but Washington used pressure (to cut off military aid) and promises (to intervene if North Vietnam resumed its invasion) to force Thieu to accept. The communist North was determined to conquer the South, and treated the accords as a way station. The Americans wanted to disengage – by late 1972, there were almost no U.S. troops left in South Vietnam, and after the accords that tally fell to zero. Washington was also in the early stages of détente with Moscow and Beijing, and saw those relationships as more important than a sideshow war. And just as U.S. support for Ukraine is unpopular today on the MAGA right, support for South Vietnam was extremely unpopular on the left. An influential part of public opinion was under the impression that the often corrupt and disorganized government in Saigon was the bad guy, while Hanoi's totalitarian regime was the good guy. John Lennon and Yoko Ono's song with the lyric 'war is over, if you want it' summed things up. If the U.S. would just stop helping the South, the war would be over. Kissinger and Tho got the Nobel Peace Prize (South Vietnam was even sidelined by the Nobel committee), and the U.S. withdrew the last of its forces. Congress opposed their reintroduction, even in the event of a new North Vietnamese invasion. American air power had stopped the North's forces in their tracks in 1972, but when Hanoi resumed the offensive in 1975, Washington let events run their course. The war ended. One side won. The other ceased to exist. Mr. Putin's willingness to expend blood and treasure to achieve victory in Ukraine is similar to how Hanoi saw its war. The Russian leader may accept tactical setbacks, but he is playing a long game against Mr. Trump, who is impatient for instant gratification. That said, Ukraine is in a stronger position than was South Vietnam. It needs Western money and arms, but not foreign boots on the ground or planes in the air. Even if Washington washes its hands of Kyiv, the other Western allies will not. But Mr. Putin has already indicated that he will try to expand the Alaska talks to issues beyond Ukraine, such as opportunities for American investors in Russia or nuclear weapons agreements. Mr. Putin is happy to offer Mr. Trump wins – beyond Ukraine. The Trump administration appears to be more focused on those things than on a war it does not see as in its interest. Whatever comes out of Friday's meet-and-greet, the White House has for some time been signalling that, while it doesn't necessarily want Ukraine to lose, it is ever less concerned with whether Ukraine wins.
Time of India
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Peace in Our Timeline? How Donald Trump keeps declaring ceasefires — and craving credit
One of life's crueler ironies is that legacies often hinge on a single moment. Take the Chamberlain family. Sir Austen Chamberlain won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the Locarno Treaties—an ambitious attempt to prevent war between France and Germany. But thanks to his half-brother, Neville Chamberlain, the family name is now synonymous with diplomatic delusions about peace. 'Peace for our time,' Neville declared after the Munich Agreement—five syllables that have since become a meme, a punchline, and the unofficial slogan of appeasement. Speaking of memes, Donald Trump has practically turned American diplomacy into one. Nowhere is this clearer than in his habit of announcing ceasefires that collapse before his posts finish loading. On June 21, in a characteristic stream-of-consciousness post on Truth Social, he delivered this extraordinary self-eulogy: Because in Trump's world, peace isn't negotiated—it's declared. Ceasefires aren't forged in backrooms or brokered by diplomats. They're conjured onTruth Social and announced as if the world runs on vibes. It's not diplomacy. It's delusion dressed in digital drag. Here are Trump's most infamous 'ceasefires'—each more imaginary than the last, each vanishing faster than you can say 'Nobel.' Russia–Ukraine Claim: On May 19, 2025, Trump said he had orchestrated 'immediate' negotiations between Russia and Ukraine after speaking to Vladimir Putin. Reality: Moscow issued a lukewarm statement, Ukraine ignored it altogether, and the war raged on. No ceasefire, no talks, no traction. Peace never left Mar-a-Lago. India–Pakistan Claim: In May 2025, Trump took credit for defusing border tensions between India and Pakistan, declaring, 'I stopped a war.' Reality: The Indian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed his claims, making it clear that any easing came from direct military dialogue between the two nations. Of course, Pakistan always one to jump the gun, nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, a day before he attacked strikes on Iran . Israel–Iran: 'Complete and Total Ceasefire' Claim: On June 23, 2025, after US stealth bombers struck Iranian nuclear sites, Trump declared a 'complete and total ceasefire now in effect.' Reality: Hours later, Iranian missiles hit Israeli cities. Israel retaliated with fresh airstrikes. Officials in both countries denied any ceasefire. The only 'complete and total' thing was the fiction. Peace in Our Timeline? How Donald Trump Keeps Declaring Ceasefires—and Craving Credit In Trump's parallel universe, diplomacy isn't measured in treaties signed or wars ended—it's measured in character count. A ceasefire is not a negotiation. It's a narrative. A press release without process. A fantasy broadcast to followers who already believe. And in that sense, Trump has achieved something remarkable: a new form of foreign policy, where facts are optional, fiction is aspirational, and the Nobel Peace Prize is just another grievance to monologue about on the internet. Peace in Our Time? Only on Truth Social. Or to be more accurate: Truth Optional.
1News
30-05-2025
- Politics
- 1News
New High Commissioner to the UK named
A former New Zealand ambassador to Japan, Russia, and Turkey has been appointed as the new High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, replacing Phil Goff in the post after he was sacked earlier this year. Hamish Cooper, who has 40 years of experience at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, will take up the role in September. Foreign Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand's relationship with the United Kingdom was "one of our most important". "Mr Cooper is one of New Zealand's most senior and experienced diplomats and is eminently well-qualified to take on this significant role." Chris Seed, who previously served as the New Zealand High Commissioner to Canberra and Port Moresby, was named in the role in an acting capacity. ADVERTISEMENT Goff made the comments which led Foreign Minister Winston Peters to declare his position "untenable" at a Chatham House event. (Source: Chatham House/YouTube) (Source: Supplied) Goff was fired after making comments on US President Donald Trump in a question he posed at a live-streamed Q&A event with Finland's foreign minister Elina Valtonen. He asked the speaker: "I was re-reading Churchill's speech to the House of Commons in 1938 after the Munich Agreement, and he turned to Chamberlain, he said, 'You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have war.' "President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?" Peters said the comments were "seriously regrettable" and made Goff's position "untenable". "When you are in that position — you represent the Government and the policies of the day. You're not able to free think. You are the face of New Zealand," Peters said. He did say it was a disappointing decision to have to make. ADVERTISEMENT "I've worked with Phil Goff, I have known him for a long time, I've worked in government with him, but it's just one of those seriously disappointing decisions one has to make." Former London representative says he was more than willing to pay the price for speaking out against US President Donald Trump. (Source: 1News) 'No regrets' Goff said he had "no regrets" about questioning Donald Trump's understanding of history, in his first public statement since being sacked from his diplomatic role. Goff said he asked the "serious and important question" about Trump — that led to his dismissal — because silence would have made New Zealand "complicit" in the US president's "disgraceful bullying" of Ukraine and its president Volodymyr Zelensky. He defended his actions in a lengthy letter, released to 1News. Goff said New Zealand could not remain silent while the Trump administration made "dishonest" and "untruthful" statements about Russia's invasion. "As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of an Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out," he stated.
