Why Munich or Yalta are inadequate parallels for Trump administration’s current infamy.
CEMIL KERIMOGLU
Dec 7, 2025
To make sense of Trump’s current, morally obscene treatment of Ukraine – specifically the recent capitulation ultimatum and the administration’s pressure on Kyiv to accept unfavorable terms – many observers draw parallels with Munich 1938. However, this is a fundamentally flawed and unfair comparison.
Current events lack any true historical equivalent, at least in the modern history of the 19th and 20th centuries. Trump’s treatment of Ukraine stands as a unique colossus of depravity. It does not follow a historical precedent; it sets one. It will serve as the dark touchstone against which all future acts of geopolitical treachery are measured.
When Czechoslovakia was pressured to make concessions to Nazi Germany in Munich in 1938, there was no active war. Nazi Germany had not yet attacked anyone and not turned fully genocidal. The Germans were not torturing, raping, mutilating, and slaughtering the Czech people. Germany had not flattened Czech cities or bombed hospitals, kindergartens, and residential buildings. Russia has done all of this and more. Furthermore, by the time the Munich Agreement was signed, Czechoslovakia had not been successfully fighting off Germany for nearly four years, as Ukraine has done today against Russia.
The Munich Agreement was a desperate attempt by Europeans to avoid another bloodbath while the harrowing memory of World War I was still fresh. Today, America faces no such risk. Simply maintaining the current, relatively minuscule support for Ukraine will not drag the United States into war.
In essence, Munich 1938 was an attempt by Western European powers to reconcile with a fellow civilized European nation – the Germans – who simply went astray at the time. There was a plausible assumption that Germany would reciprocate the gesture because Germans are a civilized European nation. Russians, however, are not. If anything, Russians represent the antithesis of Germans, and Europeans in general. Consequently, one cannot expect them to reciprocate; this is axiomatic.
What Trump is doing, however, is neither appeasement nor an attempt at reconciliation. It is the active sabotage of the Ukrainian war effort. It is active support for Russia – nothing less. Trump wants Russia to win. He glosses over Russian atrocities as if they never occurred. He is indifferent to the moral reality; he simply wants to do business with Moscow. He seeks to reintegrate Russia into the international community without preconditions and without demanding atonement for its crimes. If it were solely up to him, he would likely arm Russia himself; one could easily imagine him providing Tomahawks to Moscow rather than Kyiv.
Moreover, the US is not losing money by supporting Ukraine. It is selling weapons, and the sharing of intelligence – the most crucial component of US aid – costs the American taxpayer
nothing. If Trump were simply “disinterested” in this war, he could continue allowing sales to Europeans and permit intelligence sharing to continue. That wouldn’t be a burden at all. He could simply step off the stage, and Ukraine would continue to fight Russia successfully.
But he refuses to do so. He threatens to withdraw the very aid that costs America nothing but is existential for the Ukrainian defense. He does not simply leave the scene – he actively undermines Ukraine. He is acting as Russia’s ally.
Although Western European powers appeased Germany in 1938, they never aimed for economic cooperation or investment in the Nazi economy – not even in their wildest dreams. Trump, however, intends to invest substantially in Russia, boosting an economy that will inevitably be used to launch another invasion of Europe. He ignores that Russians have committed savage war crimes unfathomable to the Western mind. He ignores that Russia views its invasion of Ukraine as a war against the West itself. None of this matters to Trump.
The Russian economy is collapsing. It is becoming obvious with each passing day that Russia cannot sustain its war effort much longer. Yet, at this precise moment – when the collapse of the aggressor is near – the Trump administration begins pressuring the victim to sign a capitulation ultimatum. But his plan goes beyond mere surrender: he aims to heavily invest in Russia, restore it to the G8, and provide amnesty for its war crimes. This is a level of moral depravity to which the Western powers in Munich 1938 never sank.
One might draw another historical parallel: Yalta 1945, where the US and Britain abandoned Central and Eastern Europe to be devoured by the Russians. In fact, I have previously drawn parallels between Trump and Roosevelt, noting that Trump is, in many ways, a modern-day Roosevelt – a comparison meant not as a compliment, but as an indictment. Both men demonstrated a profound, misguided sympathy for Russia – albeit in its different historical incarnations – and both administrations were permeated by ardent Soviet or Russian sympathizers who swayed America’s geopolitical decisions at critical historical junctures. Just as they did in the 1930s and 40s, they attempt to do so again today.
However, even this comparison falls short. During the Roosevelt era and leading up to Yalta, there existed another unjust state alongside the Soviet Union: Nazi Germany. Although I have repeatedly emphasized that the Soviet Union was the greater evil – and that it was a grave error for Western powers to throw their unconditional support behind Russia to defeat Germany – one could still plausibly argue at the time that an alliance with the Soviets was a strategic necessity to crush Nazism. There was, undeniably, a degree of moral ambiguity. It is therefore understandable, albeit not justifiable, that the US chose the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, despite the tragic consequences that followed.
Today, however, there is absolutely no such moral ambiguity. The distinction is absolute: Ukraine is the victim fighting a legitimate war of self-defense; Russia is the brutal aggressor launching a barbaric invasion. Ukraine is good, Russia is evil. Pure and simple. The moral lines are drawn far more clearly now than they were in the 1930s-1940s. Yet, despite this clarity, the Trump administration still seeks avenues to align with Russia. They aim for joint financial
projects, pressure the victim to surrender, and, shockingly, view Russia as a partner while viewing Europe as a rival.
Therefore, what we are witnessing is not another Munich. It is not even another Yalta. It is a phenomenon entirely its own – something far worse – that will require a new entry in the history books to serve as a reference point for future infamy. If, like in other examples, we must assign a place name to this betrayal, then perhaps for future historians, this moment will be known as “Mar-a-Lago”.
Fortunately, however, Trump lacks the immense popularity that Roosevelt enjoyed in his time. This is where the analogy ends. With his political capital, Roosevelt could sway a reluctant American public toward alignment with Russia and away from Europe. Trump and his coterie desire the same outcome, but Trump is deeply unpopular. Moreover, the American public remains staunchly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia. As recent polls indicate, support for Ukraine has actually increased during Trump’s second term – defying the administration’s rhetoric – reaching its highest levels since the start of the full-scale invasion. Consequently, unlike Munich 1938 or Yalta 1945, this “Mar-a-Lago” moment is unlikely to bear fruit. It will go down in history as a mere aberration without lasting geopolitical success, remembered only as a stain of infamy on Trump, his inner circle, and the Russian sympathizers within his administration.
This is yet another attempt by the US administration to save Russia from total collapse and it will fail. History will proceed along its natural course. Ukraine and Europe will emerge victorious in their confrontation with Russia. Russia will be denuclearized, demilitarized, and disintegrated into dozens of independent states, each based on unique national and regional identities, finally renouncing their imperial Muscovite-Russian past.