By Bernard Rowan
As a baby boomer, I was weaned on the Cold War and its contours. In college, I learned of the errors in American strategy applying containment as an all-points, no-corner-for-the-enemy approach, one that ultimately led to the Vietnam War. But what remained was that World War II and related wars were fought for freedom and democracy. The inestimable costs of those conflicts stood as sacrifices and investments for the ongoing promise and opportunity of constitutional systems of government, not autocracies of various forms. If Mao and Stalin weren’t Hitler, they weren’t guides to the ways of liberty and equality. Legions still cry for freedom from arbitrary rule in the name of varied unholy grails.
The end of the Cold War, the introduction of market economies (somewhat) in China, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the flowering of democratic states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere all signaled a “peace dividend.” Gorbachev met Reagan in Reykjavik to turn back nuclear madness.
Today’s persistent rush by U.S. President Donald Trump to conclude the war in Ukraine marks either a momentary lapse in that vector, or its end. An isolationist and populist leader intent on deals appears to embrace peace and outreach to Putin. Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty has been compromised. The Russian government continues to paint the Zelenskyy government and the Ukrainian state as antisemitic fascists. These are less important than having a new peace dividend.
It may be that American military power is wanted elsewhere, or that the savings would be a huge boost for Trump’s government rationalizations. Trump appears to like Putin, as he’s done nothing but give him license to bomb the rest of life out of Ukraine, while peace talks are forming. Or, is Ukraine another Vietnam of a very different type? Millions in Europe would beg to disagree.
The bullish and bullying face of that Washington meeting with Zelenskyy is less about peace than about rapprochement, at least in Trump’s mind. Perhaps he wants to limit the triangulations of Russia with China, Iran and North Korea. This strikes me as naivete. Again, the 20th-century struggles were for keeps, not for deals. It’s clear the Axis of Autocracy is playing for keeps, for the several keepers who maintain it.
It's dangerous to appease an invader, even one who relies on mercenaries or auxiliaries from Asia. Peace through strength doesn’t depend on the mercy of the unjust and autocratic.
The costs and devastation for the Russian and Ukrainian peoples have been horrible, and the cost for both states is significant to the extreme. But just as with Gaza and Israel, if the conditions of peace have not been settled by the victory of one side, any sort of truce is unlikely to last for long. Perhaps Putin has learned lessons he wouldn’t dare to speak publicly. One hopes so.
Europe now begins to follow what Trump insisted upon last time up. The increased provision of European defense by the European members of NATO is long overdue. A stronger alliance must be a real alliance, not a cast of also-rans and near runners hanging on the coattails of a patron. Trump may make a contribution to peace by making it necessary for Europe to do more for their defense. And certainly, most of Europe also values freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
Trump, Vance, Hegseth and Rubio, a quadrumvirate unlikely in history, would do well to ponder the transience of alliances. Dismissing the Ukrainian people by saying “It’s over” makes them look like castaways. Leaving Europe to shoulder the weight of a fight against an autocratic, nuclear power demoralizes. What then will be the unity of NATO in the face of a victorious Russia, backed by China and North Korea, with Iran gleefully parrying for advantage alongside?
The pursuit of peace is a noble end, but peace without freedom isn’t real peace. The rule of love and of love of others in civil society is the rule of liberty and freedom under the law. Peace that deals these things away is appeasement, not rapprochement, and history may yet teach us that Chamberlain’s ghost is walking the halls of American power today. Roosevelt, Kennan, Eisenhower, Truman, Reagan and so many more call us to a greater reason and sense. They didn’t abandon the key aims of the last two centuries of American endeavor in the world. What time is it? The American people must stand for what we believe in, or else it will be dealt away like a card in a bad hand.
Bernard Rowan ([email protected]) is associate provost for contract administration and academic services and professor of political science at Chicago State University. He is a past fellow of the Korea Foundation and a former visiting professor at Hanyang University.
English (United States) ·