Photo by Nagarjun Kogaravalli Sathyanarayana on Unsplash
Munich is once again at the centre of global diplomacy. Within the walls of this German city, the annual security conference takes place, where the world’s future is discussed. However, when turning the pages of history, one cannot help but remember the year 1938 when diplomacy suffered one of its greatest failures in the 20th century. Back then, in an attempt to appease Hitler, Great Britain and France signed the so-called Munich Agreement with Germany and Italy. This decision proved fatal; it did not stop the aggressor but instead emboldened him, reinforcing his belief in his impunity.
The Munich Agreement of 1938 paved the way for tragedy. Czechoslovakia was not even invited to the negotiations but was simply presented with the fact, its territory was handed over to the Third Reich. Upon his return to London, Chamberlain declared peace for our time, but just six months later, Hitler broke his promises and occupied the entire Czechoslovakia. World War II began shortly after.
Western countries, in their attempt to avoid conflict, only delayed the inevitable, allowing the aggressor to gain strength. The failure represented by this appeasement cost the world tens of millions of lives. Since then, the Munich Agreement has symbolised weakness in the face of dictators and serves as a clear example that concessions do not lead to peace but only provoke further aggression.
Eighty-seven years have passed, yet the world once again stands at a crossroads. Will modern diplomacy learn from history, or will it once again follow the path of concessions? Today, on the eve of decisive events, world leaders are engaged in discussions on security and conflicts, particularly concerning the future of Ukraine.
The position of the United States appears ambiguous. Donald Trump, who has called for a meeting between representatives of the US, Russia, and Ukraine, is facing internal contradictions within his administration. Official statements from Washington are conflicting: some officials rule out the possibility of providing military assistance to Ukraine or NATO membership, while others speak of increasing support and even the potential transfer of nuclear weapons to Kyiv. Declarations about peace talks are also contradictory: some insist that Kyiv must first negotiate with Washington before engaging with Moscow, while others argue that Zelensky and Putin should meet directly at the negotiation table without intermediaries. All these diplomatic manoeuvres are reminiscent of 1938, when instead of standing firm against the dictator, the West engaged in fruitless negotiations, convincing itself that compromise was possible.
History proves that attempts to appease an aggressor always lead to new demands. Hitler, after receiving the Sudetenland, did not stop. He saw Europe’s weakness and expanded his offensive. Putin, behaving exactly like the totalitarian fascist dictator, did not stop after annexing Crimea in 2014. Today, he is issuing ultimata about disarming Ukraine and changing its leadership. Do we need to remind ourselves of how such demands end if concessions are yielded? Modern geopolitics must recognise that one can only engage with dictators from a position of strength and unity. Any concession is seen not as an act of goodwill but as weakness.
The issue of Ukraine is not just about Kyiv. It is about whether the world will learn the lesson of 1938. Will it repeat the mistakes of the past, or will it demonstrate resolve and set clear boundaries that the aggressor will not be able to cross? While negotiations continue in Munich, the central question arises: will 2025 be the year when history repeats itself, or will it instead be the moment when the world shows that it has learned from its mistakes? Will the West stand united against the threat, or will it once again attempt to outsmart the aggressor, giving him more room for manoeuvre?
Munich, in 1938, became a symbol of diplomatic failure. Munich 2025 must become its opposite – proof that humanity has finally learned the lesson of history. Otherwise, the future could be even darker than past history.
