Appeasement” refers to a policy aimed at avoiding conflict or war by making concessions to and aggressive or hostile country. In international relations appeasement involves giving in to the demands of a more powerful nation to avoid confrontation, even if it means sacrificing one’s own interest or values.
Appeasement got a bad name due to the rise of Hitler. It was correctly seen as encouraging Hitler’s aggressive behaviour by giving him the impression that he could continue to take what he wanted without fear of retaliation. The policy was seen as a betrayal of smaller countries, such as Czechoslovakia, which were sacrificed to appease Hitler’s demands. Appeasement allowed Hitler to consolidate his power and strengthen his military, making it more difficult to subsequently defeat him.
But the circumstances that prevailed in the lead up to WWII were not the same as the circumstances that immediately followed it during the first Cold War. The big game changer? The acquisition of nuclear weapons by the world’s great powers.
Since then, appeasement has been a quiet yet essential part of any prudent foreign policy playbook. It is right that it should remain quiet because governments should not wish to appear too fearful of bullies and appeasement is essentially based on fear. Yet it is completely rational to fear the consequences of nuclear war. We wouldn’t want leaders who do not hold that fear.
Appeasement lies at the heart of foreign policy concepts such as the balance of terror and détente. It was appeasement that prevented nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War. The clearest example? The Soviet Union’s appeasement of US demands to withdraw its nuclear missiles from Cuba.
The US and NATO have railed against any peace deal in Ukraine that would allow Russia to keep Crimea or Donbas as they say that this would represent appeasement of Putin’s illegal invasion. And indeed, it would. Yet appeasement lies at the heart of the US and NATO’s refusal to allow its military forces to participate directly in a war with Russia- a decision which may well mean that Ukraine cannot prevail militarily against Russia. If this occurs it will surely lead to recriminations by foreign policy hawks that the US and NATO did not do enough and that the war was lost due to “politicians” not due to lack of heroism by the Ukrainian people.
The war in Ukraine has been framed as a battle between the values of autocracy and a democracy. It has even been claimed that the whole future of Western democracy depends on Ukraine winning the war. It doesn’t. Does anyone seriously believe western democracy will crumble if Ukraine does not win a decisive military victory against Russia?
This is not to say that concerns for Ukraine’s sovereignty and democracy are not genuinely held by some. But in the end, they are clearly not as important to the US and NATO as avoiding the risk of nuclear war. This could change. But currently that is the reality and chances are it will continue to be.