After painfully watching the disastrous Oval Office meeting two days ago which ended in the berating of President Zelensky of Ukraine, I had to write this.

My question is why — why — are there no leaders, commentators or opinion writers calling out Donald Trump as the Neville Chamberlain of our time, given the history outlined below.

In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler, along with France’s Édouard Daladier and Italy’s Benito Mussolini. This agreement allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a German-speaking region of Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Hitler’s promise that he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe.

Chamberlain sought to prevent war and believed that by making concessions, he could satisfy Hitler and maintain peace in Europe. He returned to Britain declaring that he had achieved “peace for our time.” However, this hope proved to be specious (deceptively false) for several reasons:

Why the Munich Agreement Was Flawed

1. It Emboldened Hitler – The agreement signaled to Hitler that Britain and France were unwilling to take military action, which encouraged him to continue his expansionist policies. Less than six months later, in March 1939, Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, proving that his assurances were meaningless.
2. It Weakened Czechoslovakia and Strengthened Germany – By surrendering the Sudetenland, the Czechs lost vital defensive fortifications, industrial resources, and political sovereignty. This made it easier for Germany to dominate Central Europe.
3. It Undermined Collective Security – Britain and France negotiated with Hitler without consulting Czechoslovakia, demonstrating that small nations could be sacrificed for the illusion of peace. This eroded trust among European allies.
4. It Delayed War but Made It Worse – Instead of preventing war, the Munich Agreement gave Hitler time to build up his military, ensuring that when war did come, it was on his terms and at a much greater cost.

What Lessons were Learned from Munich

1. Appeasement of aggressive dictators only encourages further aggression.
2. Diplomatic agreements without enforcement mechanisms are meaningless.
3. Abandoning allies weakens the security of all nations.
4. A strong deterrence policy is necessary to prevent war, not just wishful thinking.

Applicability to Today’s Situation with Russia

There are so many parallels between Munich (1938) and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). The key lessons from Munich apply in several ways:

1. Putin’s Expansionism Resembles Hitler’s – Just as Hitler demanded the Sudetenland under the pretext of protecting ethnic Germans, Putin justified his invasion of Ukraine by claiming to protect Russian-speaking populations. However, like Hitler, his ambitions extend beyond the initial excuse.
2. The West’s Initial Response Was Weak – In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, the West responded with limited sanctions but no military support. This was reminiscent of Munich—concessions made in the hope of preventing a larger conflict. Instead, Putin was emboldened to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
3. A Failure to Stop Putin Now Could Lead to Further Aggression – If Russia is allowed to conquer Ukraine without consequence, it could encourage further aggression toward Moldova, the Baltic states, or Poland. Just as Hitler’s unchecked aggression led to WWII, allowing Putin’s expansion to go unchallenged could set the stage for a broader European war.
4. Strong Deterrence Is Necessary – The West’s response today, in contrast to Munich, has included military aid, economic sanctions, and NATO expansion. However, some argue that hesitation and delays in supplying weapons and imposing sanctions have prolonged the war, similar to the failures of appeasement in the 1930s.

The Bottom Line

The Munich Agreement remains one of history’s most powerful warnings about the dangers of appeasement. The world learned that dictators do not stop unless they are stopped. Today, the situation with Russia demonstrates that firm resistance, not concessions, is the only way to prevent further aggression.

Would Chamberlain have acted differently if he had known the full extent of Hitler’s plans? Perhaps. But today’s leaders do know Putin’s record—so the question is, will they apply the lessons of history before it’s too late?