History

The problem with using historical analogies is that the situations have to be analogous, not just rhyme. I'm reading some pretty embarrassing and specious posts on the Canadian truckers protests and on the Russian threat to Ukraine, and how western democracy is imperiled if the governments of Canada and the US don't resort to threats of violence and then violence. No, what Canada did is not appeasement and this isn't Munich. And what's happening in Ukraine isn't a prelude to a Russian invasion of Poland.

I don't say this to make light of either situation. I have zero sympathy for the truckers and I'm glad the protesters mostly dispersed on their own and the rest were arrested. But it was accomplished without choke holds, tasers or firearms (pace Sean Hannity). As for Ukraine, NATO added nine eastern European nations to its membership after promising Russia it wouldn't expand after German unification. I have zero sympathy for Putin, but I understand that what's happening with Ukraine is a sign of Putin's weakness, not his strength. Putin isn't Hitler and the Russian army isn't the German Wehrmacht.

Every political confrontation isn't Munich, and every response that doesn't involve a declaration of war isn't appeasement. Slogans and historical sophistry are easy. Real government in democracies is hard. Even Churchill supported appeasement when in a position of strength. The whole world is watching, peeps.