Appeasement of Russia Would be Violate Conservative Principles and Threaten Security

The modern conservative movement in America was founded in the 1930s on opposition to appeasement, in addition to the opposition to the New Deal policies of the liberal Democrats. Appeasement refers to the policy of placating foreign States that commit aggression, the unjust conquest by force or threat of force of the territory of another internationally recognized state, by accepting some of their conquests in the vain hope of satisfying their tyrannical leaders’ thirst for territory and power. The policy of appeasement was infamously adopted by the leading Western European States in 1938, after the Axis Powers, which already possessed far more territory than currently, had been committing aggression against other States and absorbing them into their empires, starting in the mid-1930s. When Nazi Germany demanded the Sudetenland, the German-speaking western strip of neighboring Czechoslovakia, the Western Powers agreed to allow Germany to seize the territory, in exchange for a promise not to seize the rest of Czechoslovakia, hoping that German tyrant Adolph Hitler would be satisfied only with uniting the German-speaking areas to his country, thereby avoiding a major war in Europe between the Axis Powers and the other Great Powers. But instead, the weakness encouraged Hitler by whetting his appetite for more conquest. Nazi Germany soon invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. After the German-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, Europe and eventually most of the rest of the world were plunged into the Second World War. Conservatives drew the lesson from the failure of appeasement of the necessity of a strong defense and a foreign policy that recognizes and confronts threats to global security, instead of accepting and encouraging aggression. The opposition to aggression has been a cornerstone of United States and international foreign policy ever since and various attempts at conquest have been opposed, usually successfully. The latest example has been the attempts by The Russian Federation, which is the successor to the Soviet Union, and the rump state to both it and the Russian Empire. Its current tyrant, Vladimir Putin, is an ex-Soviet intelligence officer who is trying to restore the Soviet Union and Russian Empire. Following a somewhat similar pattern to the Axis Powers, he has engaged in a series of aggressions. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, seizing separatist territories to set up puppet states and then further encroached on Georgian territory and violated a promise to withdraw, has stationed troops in Moldova in support of a breakaway territory inhabited by Russian speakers since the time of the Russian Empire, seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, in violation of its agreement to recognize its neighbors’ independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, fomented separatism in the Russian-speaking parts of eastern Ukraine, and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to conquer the rest of it, after annexing Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are former Soviet Republics. Russia paid little price for invading Georgia, and suffered some serious economic sanctions for conquering Crimea, but not comprehensive sanctions and no military consequences and was thus not deterred. It is shocking, therefore, that some “conservatives” in America or Europe today openly advocate for appeasement (in all but name) of Russia, for the sake of the “national interest” of America or European States, even though it is contrary to U.S. interest. There is a vocal wing in the Republican-led U.S. Congress, as well as in conservative media and among ordinary party members that is isolationist, contrary to conservative principles, or even openly pro-Russian, despite Russian human rights violations, aggression, support for terrorist-sponsoring and other rogue regimes, interference in American and foreign elections, and various other machinations. Recent statements by GOP Senator Mike Lee of Utah opposing defending Europe against Russian aggression and a reported plan by the leading Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, to reward Russian aggression by allowing it to steal Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace, are the latest examples. Trump, who was successfully backed during his nomination and election to the presidency in 2016 by “systematic and sweeping” Russian election interference, in the words of a Republican special prosecutor which were confirmed by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, has been opposing the current bill in the House of Representatives for defensive aid to Ukraine that was easily approved by the GOP-led Senate. The delay in its passage has allowed Russia to make battlefield gains, similarly to how Trump’s delay of sending military aid during his presidency aided the Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. This policy of appeasement dangerously undermines American security. Because it ignores American and British security guarantees given to Ukraine after its independence in 1991, in exchange for giving up the Soviet nuclear missiles on its soil because of Russia’s concern about its security, in which Russia agreed to accept Ukraine’s borders, it encourages nuclear proliferation, instead of discouraging it. It would also pose a direct geopolitical security threat from Russia. Russia would be able to retain its claimed “sphere of influence” over all the former Soviet Republics that are recognized as independent States by Russia, the U.S. and internationally and are members of the United Nations. Those States would continue to be victimized by intimidation, cyberattacks, election interference and other hybrid attacks, and would certainly be victimized by Russian aggression, in one form or another. These free States which want to continue to enjoy closer relations and trade with the U.S. and the West would thus lose not only their independence, but their liberty and representative government, while Americans would thus lose faithful allies to an increasingly menacing Russia. The abandonment of allies would damage American credibility and its and its allies’ effective deterrence of hostile States around the world, including Russian allies like Communist China and North Korea. Russia would then be able, as it has in the former Soviet Republic of Belarus, to advance both its conventional and nuclear forces closer to Western Europe and America, thereby increasing its threat to Western security. Furthermore, Russia would also be able to exercise greater influence over former Soviet Satellite States in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The world would thus again be under increased threat to violent tyrants conquering whatever territories they desired, as in the 1930s, with political and economic uncertainty eroding the relative order of the post-war world that has brought peace, freedom and prosperity on an unprecedented scale in human history. I have posted repeatedly how Trumpism is a populist mix of ideas that are not conservative, such as protectionism, nativism and isolationism, but the appeasement of Russian aggression would not only violated a core conservative principle, but would be Trumpism’s most dangerous policy that would threaten American and global security, which Putin is eager to see implemented.